Just found the confirmation on a German VR-related web page that the Playstation Pro benefits for existing VR-games and those to be released in the future will include Supersampling.
[url]http://www.vrnerds.de/playstation-vr-battlezone-mit-supersampling-auf-der-ps4-pro/[/url]
For me this is great news since I currently rate the visual quality of Playstation VR even a little higher than Rift and Vive (Super-Sampling included) due to the PS VR's minimized screen-door effect. Taking into consideration how much of a difference the sumper-sampling does for overall visual quality of the Rift and the Vive I guess great things are about to happen......
Just found the confirmation on a German VR-related web page that the Playstation Pro benefits for existing VR-games and those to be released in the future will include Supersampling.
For me this is great news since I currently rate the visual quality of Playstation VR even a little higher than Rift and Vive (Super-Sampling included) due to the PS VR's minimized screen-door effect. Taking into consideration how much of a difference the sumper-sampling does for overall visual quality of the Rift and the Vive I guess great things are about to happen......
Also everyone's forgetting Sony's support is excellent when supporting new gadgets for six to seven months then support is dropped and the hardware is worthless.
The only way I would purchase a Playstation VR set is if it had full PC support.
Also everyone's forgetting Sony's support is excellent when supporting new gadgets for six to seven months then support is dropped and the hardware is worthless.
The only way I would purchase a Playstation VR set is if it had full PC support.
Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55
As i see there are PROS and CONS:
[b]PROS:[/b]
[u]3D Vision surround:[/u]
-immersive gamming in 3D
-almost all games can work in 3d (tks to the 3d community gods)
-3 monitors can have wider uses then a VR helmet outside gaming
-wider game genres (strategy, rpg, shooters, mmo, action games, basically everything)
-supports both 1'st person and 3'rd person games
[u]VR:[/u]
-full 360 immersion
-good horror games
-very good shooter games (in case of fully supported)
[b]CONS:[/b]
[u]3D Vision surround:[/u]
-very expensive gear
-very demanding setup
-must learn how to apply 3d patches, use nvidea inspector, 3D Profile Manager, optimize separation and convergence, etc (makes you part of the community which is good)
[u]VR: [/u]
-very expensive gear
-very demanding setup
-super few games fully supported and nobody can fix the ones that are not
-restricted to 1'st person games (no strategy games, no 3'rd person rpg's etc)
-shooters need full support where you move your gun independent of where you look (otherwise it's like having a gun on your nose)
If you are using a GTX 970 on a Asus VG278 then you are like me, which means i can barelly play GTA V on max settings on one single monitor, for 3 monitors or VR i would need at least a GTX 1080 if not two in SLI. But that's just me, i'm very sensitive to motion sickness, everything below 45 fps makes me puke :D
PROS: 3D Vision surround:
-immersive gamming in 3D
-almost all games can work in 3d (tks to the 3d community gods)
-3 monitors can have wider uses then a VR helmet outside gaming
-wider game genres (strategy, rpg, shooters, mmo, action games, basically everything)
-supports both 1'st person and 3'rd person games VR:
-full 360 immersion
-good horror games
-very good shooter games (in case of fully supported)
CONS: 3D Vision surround:
-very expensive gear
-very demanding setup
-must learn how to apply 3d patches, use nvidea inspector, 3D Profile Manager, optimize separation and convergence, etc (makes you part of the community which is good) VR:
-very expensive gear
-very demanding setup
-super few games fully supported and nobody can fix the ones that are not
-restricted to 1'st person games (no strategy games, no 3'rd person rpg's etc)
-shooters need full support where you move your gun independent of where you look (otherwise it's like having a gun on your nose)
If you are using a GTX 970 on a Asus VG278 then you are like me, which means i can barelly play GTA V on max settings on one single monitor, for 3 monitors or VR i would need at least a GTX 1080 if not two in SLI. But that's just me, i'm very sensitive to motion sickness, everything below 45 fps makes me puke :D
[quote="lohan"][quote="vurt72"]
I've read nothing but bad about it, problems with tracking (drifting etc) + the tracking in itself is far inferior to something like Vive or Oculus, the controllers have more lag. Resolution is obviously worse and you see more black on the sides etc (immersion breaking). As for games, i dunno, resident evil might be cool, but its "only" exlusive to sony vr for 1 year, it will be 10x better on a PC with Oculus in terms of graphics, controlls, tracking..[/quote]
It seems you never personally tested it! Owning every available VR headset I have to admit that currently I am most impressed by Playstation VR. While the resolution is lower than Rift and Vive the screen-door effect is greatly reduced (due to the use of an OLED-RGB screen which has more sub-pixels than Rift and Vive). So in fact - and nearly every major review across the net confirms this - while you have lower resolution on paper the overall visual quality is definitely not inferior. Currently I like the overall visual quality of Playstation VR the most (yes I am already using the highest possible super-sampling for Rift and Vive). Since visual benefits already have been confirmed for most of the Playstation VR games when Playstation 4 Pro is coming out in roughly 2 weeks things will even get better :-)
FOV is basically the same for all three headsets (with only marginal differences).
Yes Playstation Move tracking is definitely inferior to the magnificent Vive tracking system and also to the Rift's tracking but it is in no way bad. Having in mind that the Move-tech is 6 years old now I am quite surprised how good it is holding up in every game/demo that I tested so far. It's definitely working quite beautiful.
[quote="helifax"]
3D Surround (while it requires specific hardware - 3x3D Vision Ready monitor and some adapters) offers the BEST results for all the games in 3D out there.[/quote]
I actually switched my 3X27" 3D Vision Surround Setup with a single LG 65" 4K OLED screen (using the EDID override that enables 4K 3D Vision on your 4K TV) as I think this is the best possible way to enjoy 3D Vision. While 3D Vision Surround has this huge horizontal FOV the vertical FOV always stays the same. So scale-wise nothing really changes with a 3D Vision Surround setup. All those huge monsters and characters still have the same small size as when playing on a single 24/27" monitor.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though.
vurt72 said:
I've read nothing but bad about it, problems with tracking (drifting etc) + the tracking in itself is far inferior to something like Vive or Oculus, the controllers have more lag. Resolution is obviously worse and you see more black on the sides etc (immersion breaking). As for games, i dunno, resident evil might be cool, but its "only" exlusive to sony vr for 1 year, it will be 10x better on a PC with Oculus in terms of graphics, controlls, tracking..
It seems you never personally tested it! Owning every available VR headset I have to admit that currently I am most impressed by Playstation VR. While the resolution is lower than Rift and Vive the screen-door effect is greatly reduced (due to the use of an OLED-RGB screen which has more sub-pixels than Rift and Vive). So in fact - and nearly every major review across the net confirms this - while you have lower resolution on paper the overall visual quality is definitely not inferior. Currently I like the overall visual quality of Playstation VR the most (yes I am already using the highest possible super-sampling for Rift and Vive). Since visual benefits already have been confirmed for most of the Playstation VR games when Playstation 4 Pro is coming out in roughly 2 weeks things will even get better :-)
FOV is basically the same for all three headsets (with only marginal differences).
Yes Playstation Move tracking is definitely inferior to the magnificent Vive tracking system and also to the Rift's tracking but it is in no way bad. Having in mind that the Move-tech is 6 years old now I am quite surprised how good it is holding up in every game/demo that I tested so far. It's definitely working quite beautiful.
helifax said:
3D Surround (while it requires specific hardware - 3x3D Vision Ready monitor and some adapters) offers the BEST results for all the games in 3D out there.
I actually switched my 3X27" 3D Vision Surround Setup with a single LG 65" 4K OLED screen (using the EDID override that enables 4K 3D Vision on your 4K TV) as I think this is the best possible way to enjoy 3D Vision. While 3D Vision Surround has this huge horizontal FOV the vertical FOV always stays the same. So scale-wise nothing really changes with a 3D Vision Surround setup. All those huge monsters and characters still have the same small size as when playing on a single 24/27" monitor.
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
It so depends what one likes the most. I would not ever be comfotable sitting in front of monitor.
But i Also can't stand the idea of bezels. So surround would be out for me, unless done with projectors and edge blending.
But those i kind of the things you can't ask, you have to Try out and change things if not happy.
Many tv users don't like to use projectors or its just matter of whats available for the money wanted to invest (Bad word :D)
It so depends what one likes the most. I would not ever be comfotable sitting in front of monitor.
But i Also can't stand the idea of bezels. So surround would be out for me, unless done with projectors and edge blending.
But those i kind of the things you can't ask, you have to Try out and change things if not happy.
Many tv users don't like to use projectors or its just matter of whats available for the money wanted to invest (Bad word :D)
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
I absolutely hate projectors for the LACK of brightness and having the need of a dark room constantly;)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="helifax"]I absolutely hate projectors for the LACK of brightness and having the need of a dark room constantly;)
[/quote]
Helifax you Forgot the heat blast. no need to go to the beach when there is 30 degree outside, your inside in a dark room with 2 projectors and a pc heating the room :D
If you go projector setup AC is a must have unless you live in arctica.
But my point exactly. Personal preferences.
Everything that makes more than one function is a compromise!
helifax said:I absolutely hate projectors for the LACK of brightness and having the need of a dark room constantly;)
Helifax you Forgot the heat blast. no need to go to the beach when there is 30 degree outside, your inside in a dark room with 2 projectors and a pc heating the room :D
If you go projector setup AC is a must have unless you live in arctica.
But my point exactly. Personal preferences.
Everything that makes more than one function is a compromise!
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
[quote="CeeJayII"][quote="lohan"][quote="vurt72"]
I've read nothing but bad about it, problems with tracking (drifting etc) + the tracking in itself is far inferior to something like Vive or Oculus, the controllers have more lag. Resolution is obviously worse and you see more black on the sides etc (immersion breaking). As for games, i dunno, resident evil might be cool, but its "only" exlusive to sony vr for 1 year, it will be 10x better on a PC with Oculus in terms of graphics, controlls, tracking..[/quote]
It seems you never personally tested it! Owning every available VR headset I have to admit that currently I am most impressed by Playstation VR. While the resolution is lower than Rift and Vive the screen-door effect is greatly reduced (due to the use of an OLED-RGB screen which has more sub-pixels than Rift and Vive). So in fact - and nearly every major review across the net confirms this - while you have lower resolution on paper the overall visual quality is definitely not inferior. Currently I like the overall visual quality of Playstation VR the most (yes I am already using the highest possible super-sampling for Rift and Vive). Since visual benefits already have been confirmed for most of the Playstation VR games when Playstation 4 Pro is coming out in roughly 2 weeks things will even get better :-)
FOV is basically the same for all three headsets (with only marginal differences).
Yes Playstation Move tracking is definitely inferior to the magnificent Vive tracking system and also to the Rift's tracking but it is in no way bad. Having in mind that the Move-tech is 6 years old now I am quite surprised how good it is holding up in every game/demo that I tested so far. It's definitely working quite beautiful.
[quote="helifax"]
3D Surround (while it requires specific hardware - 3x3D Vision Ready monitor and some adapters) offers the BEST results for all the games in 3D out there.[/quote]
I actually switched my 3X27" 3D Vision Surround Setup with a single LG 65" 4K OLED screen (using the EDID override that enables 4K 3D Vision on your 4K TV) as I think this is the best possible way to enjoy 3D Vision. While 3D Vision Surround has this huge horizontal FOV the vertical FOV always stays the same. So scale-wise nothing really changes with a 3D Vision Surround setup. All those huge monsters and characters still have the same small size as when playing on a single 24/27" monitor.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though. [/quote]
Hi. I am looking for alternatives to 3d vision surround.
With 4k 3d, can you achieve 60fps in 3d at 4k resolutions or is the resolution halved or do you get less than 60fps?
vurt72 said:
I've read nothing but bad about it, problems with tracking (drifting etc) + the tracking in itself is far inferior to something like Vive or Oculus, the controllers have more lag. Resolution is obviously worse and you see more black on the sides etc (immersion breaking). As for games, i dunno, resident evil might be cool, but its "only" exlusive to sony vr for 1 year, it will be 10x better on a PC with Oculus in terms of graphics, controlls, tracking..
It seems you never personally tested it! Owning every available VR headset I have to admit that currently I am most impressed by Playstation VR. While the resolution is lower than Rift and Vive the screen-door effect is greatly reduced (due to the use of an OLED-RGB screen which has more sub-pixels than Rift and Vive). So in fact - and nearly every major review across the net confirms this - while you have lower resolution on paper the overall visual quality is definitely not inferior. Currently I like the overall visual quality of Playstation VR the most (yes I am already using the highest possible super-sampling for Rift and Vive). Since visual benefits already have been confirmed for most of the Playstation VR games when Playstation 4 Pro is coming out in roughly 2 weeks things will even get better :-)
FOV is basically the same for all three headsets (with only marginal differences).
Yes Playstation Move tracking is definitely inferior to the magnificent Vive tracking system and also to the Rift's tracking but it is in no way bad. Having in mind that the Move-tech is 6 years old now I am quite surprised how good it is holding up in every game/demo that I tested so far. It's definitely working quite beautiful.
helifax said:
3D Surround (while it requires specific hardware - 3x3D Vision Ready monitor and some adapters) offers the BEST results for all the games in 3D out there.
I actually switched my 3X27" 3D Vision Surround Setup with a single LG 65" 4K OLED screen (using the EDID override that enables 4K 3D Vision on your 4K TV) as I think this is the best possible way to enjoy 3D Vision. While 3D Vision Surround has this huge horizontal FOV the vertical FOV always stays the same. So scale-wise nothing really changes with a 3D Vision Surround setup. All those huge monsters and characters still have the same small size as when playing on a single 24/27" monitor.
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though.
Hi. I am looking for alternatives to 3d vision surround.
With 4k 3d, can you achieve 60fps in 3d at 4k resolutions or is the resolution halved or do you get less than 60fps?
Rampage 4 Extreme
4960x oc 4.6 Ghz, H100i watercooler
2080 Ti Sli
Windows 7 Ultimate Edition
5760x1080 PG258Q/2560x1440 PG278Q
4K panel just makes possible to display fullhd 3D with line interlieve method ...if im correct
Allthough 3D @ fullhd per eye is about same looking in terms of sharpness as 2d with 4K plus the depth.
4K panel just makes possible to display fullhd 3D with line interlieve method ...if im correct
Allthough 3D @ fullhd per eye is about same looking in terms of sharpness as 2d with 4K plus the depth.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Since we are speaking of passive 3D the effective resolution is 3840x1080!
Another reason why I prefer the 55/65" 4K solution for 3D Vision is the fact that the bigger scale also allows for more details to be noticeable.
I noticed that especially in Beat'em Ups like Mortal Kombat X or in Sports Games like the WWE 2K-series. For example when playing on a single 24/27" monitor or even in Surround I never noticed how detailed the characters change their facial expressions according to what they are doing or suffering at specific moments. With 4K 3D Vision on a big screen you have the needed scale plus the needed visual quality to really enjoy those finer details. And trust me...it really makes a difference!
Since we are speaking of passive 3D the effective resolution is 3840x1080!
Another reason why I prefer the 55/65" 4K solution for 3D Vision is the fact that the bigger scale also allows for more details to be noticeable.
I noticed that especially in Beat'em Ups like Mortal Kombat X or in Sports Games like the WWE 2K-series. For example when playing on a single 24/27" monitor or even in Surround I never noticed how detailed the characters change their facial expressions according to what they are doing or suffering at specific moments. With 4K 3D Vision on a big screen you have the needed scale plus the needed visual quality to really enjoy those finer details. And trust me...it really makes a difference!
[quote="lohan"]Since we are speaking of passive 3D the effective resolution is 3840x1080![/quote]
Yes but it looks about the same. Well its quite hard to compare as 2d is only 2d and booring Flat after 3D.
But it feels kind of same. Allthough i game with big screen i have never ever found my self thinking
"Man i need more resolution" maby more lumens or frames. Never resolution the 3840x1080 is quite
Enough
lohan said:Since we are speaking of passive 3D the effective resolution is 3840x1080!
Yes but it looks about the same. Well its quite hard to compare as 2d is only 2d and booring Flat after 3D.
But it feels kind of same. Allthough i game with big screen i have never ever found my self thinking
"Man i need more resolution" maby more lumens or frames. Never resolution the 3840x1080 is quite
Enough
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
[quote="helifax"]Yupp and I would make a Surround of 3 TVs like that if only they would be certified by 3D Vision;)[/quote]
nVidia should seriously consider something like selling licenses to us that makes our "not 3d vision ready" displays 3d vision ready. I'm also playing through an EDID for my 27SA950 sammy. At the time when I saw this monitor in the shop all I noticed was the big "120Hz" on the box. Drove home and did some "thorough" research (since I waited 5 years for something similar and got very excited). Drove back the next day and bought it. Thought I was one step closer to 3d vision till I found out about all the back stabbing going on between the two companies.
A system where you could buy a license to "activate" your gpu's 3d vision shouldn't be to hard to implement? To those who want to stick to the 3d vision kit, and the monitor they approve, 3d vision should be free.
Im enjoying 3d vision without the 3d vision kit for years now. But I'm willing to pay nVidia for a 3d vision license because its definitely worth it! Even if it meant paying a monthly fee to have them keep an eye out for us 3d gamers I wouldn't hesitate.
[quote="helifax"]Just look at the HelixMod and how many games we have fixed in 3D Vision (and SURROUND). How many of them work PROPERLY in VR? NONE.[/quote]
What percentage of gamers in the world are stereoscopic gamers? (Including Tridef and PS VR). 5% perhaps? Of that 5% how many are 3d vision gamers? Unless that % grows we will always be stuck with the problems we have. From all the issues reading through the different forums/threads you could see that compatibility and user friendliness are the biggest. If nVidia would've made it easier at least for its own customers, the 3d community would grow and devs would make an effort to focus on the stereoscopic side of their designs. The demand from the 3d community aint big enough for the devs to hear the cry. Thats just how I see it..
[quote="lohan"]A huge 55/65"-screen displaying 3D Vision in 4K kind of gives you the best of both worlds since you will enjoy the highest possible visual 3D quality and due to the huge display-size that is occupying your entire field-of-view (not only in length but also in height) you will also maximize the immersion aspect of any given game.[/quote]
Like your reasoning lohan! Seems like a very expensive lady this one. If its using passive glasses theres no ghosting? With the EDID do you get funny things like monitor switching off at random times?
[quote="zig11727"]Also everyone's forgetting Sony's support is excellent when supporting new gadgets for six to seven months then support is dropped and the hardware is worthless.[/quote]
This were my worrees with my current setup. Its hanging on from Jan 2013 now. When you take out the big bucks you want something that last you at least 4-5 years. But feel its time for a more powerfull gpu. From Bo3B's feedback I read somewhere I realised the VR gear wont be ready anytime soon.
[quote="Payne-TK"]-shooters need full support where you move your gun independent of where you look (otherwise it's like having a gun on your nose)[/quote]
I hope the devs come up with a plan for this XD. Been pondering about this for a long time now. They should start with the old school "duck hunt" where the dog could laugh at you for missing lol
helifax said:Yupp and I would make a Surround of 3 TVs like that if only they would be certified by 3D Vision;)
nVidia should seriously consider something like selling licenses to us that makes our "not 3d vision ready" displays 3d vision ready. I'm also playing through an EDID for my 27SA950 sammy. At the time when I saw this monitor in the shop all I noticed was the big "120Hz" on the box. Drove home and did some "thorough" research (since I waited 5 years for something similar and got very excited). Drove back the next day and bought it. Thought I was one step closer to 3d vision till I found out about all the back stabbing going on between the two companies.
A system where you could buy a license to "activate" your gpu's 3d vision shouldn't be to hard to implement? To those who want to stick to the 3d vision kit, and the monitor they approve, 3d vision should be free.
Im enjoying 3d vision without the 3d vision kit for years now. But I'm willing to pay nVidia for a 3d vision license because its definitely worth it! Even if it meant paying a monthly fee to have them keep an eye out for us 3d gamers I wouldn't hesitate.
helifax said:Just look at the HelixMod and how many games we have fixed in 3D Vision (and SURROUND). How many of them work PROPERLY in VR? NONE.
What percentage of gamers in the world are stereoscopic gamers? (Including Tridef and PS VR). 5% perhaps? Of that 5% how many are 3d vision gamers? Unless that % grows we will always be stuck with the problems we have. From all the issues reading through the different forums/threads you could see that compatibility and user friendliness are the biggest. If nVidia would've made it easier at least for its own customers, the 3d community would grow and devs would make an effort to focus on the stereoscopic side of their designs. The demand from the 3d community aint big enough for the devs to hear the cry. Thats just how I see it..
lohan said:A huge 55/65"-screen displaying 3D Vision in 4K kind of gives you the best of both worlds since you will enjoy the highest possible visual 3D quality and due to the huge display-size that is occupying your entire field-of-view (not only in length but also in height) you will also maximize the immersion aspect of any given game.
Like your reasoning lohan! Seems like a very expensive lady this one. If its using passive glasses theres no ghosting? With the EDID do you get funny things like monitor switching off at random times?
zig11727 said:Also everyone's forgetting Sony's support is excellent when supporting new gadgets for six to seven months then support is dropped and the hardware is worthless.
This were my worrees with my current setup. Its hanging on from Jan 2013 now. When you take out the big bucks you want something that last you at least 4-5 years. But feel its time for a more powerfull gpu. From Bo3B's feedback I read somewhere I realised the VR gear wont be ready anytime soon.
Payne-TK said:-shooters need full support where you move your gun independent of where you look (otherwise it's like having a gun on your nose)
I hope the devs come up with a plan for this XD. Been pondering about this for a long time now. They should start with the old school "duck hunt" where the dog could laugh at you for missing lol
[quote="lohan"]
A huge 55/65"-screen displaying 3D Vision in 4K kind of gives you the best of both worlds since you will enjoy the highest possible visual 3D quality and due to the huge display-size that is occupying your entire field-of-view (not only in length but also in height) you will also maximize the immersion aspect of any given game.
[/quote]
That is exactly what SURROUND IS NOT! IS NOT A ZOOM EFFECT. Getting a bigger screen is JUST A BIG ZOOM EFFECT.
Surround is about MAINTAINING the same HEIGHT but adding extra FOV.
For the record:
- YOU as a stereo person, have a very limited VERTICAL FOV and a HUGE WIDE HORIZONTAL FOV. Exactly like Surround. I can understand the bezels bothering, but what you say...
Why don't you get a Projector then and Project on a 120000 feet wall? Sure You can actually get the characters to be 1:1 scale with you;) Is that about Seeing more? (exactly what surrounds Offers?)
Clearly you like the "immersion" factor, while some people like me, like the "overview" factor;)
Surrounds adds OVERVIEW .
4K (Passive with half height resolution lost which is basically a 21:9 Monitor with full resolution 3840x1080) adds more "immersion".
I guess it depends on what each and everyone likes;) Like I said, I would make a Surround out of 3x4K TVs ^_^
But swapping Surround for a Bigger SINGLE screen still fails to make me see how is more awesome than Surround :-s (Oh and Believe me I tried it like 4 times with different sets and such... Even for 2D is meh... I feel like I have horse glasses on;)) )
I am not "defending" Surround because I have it and paid money for it (It will actually be cheaper to go to single BIG Monitor/TV). But I do defend the "immersion" factor;) which you can't compare it even with a 101' TV (unless you make Surround out of those TVs ^_^)
lohan said:
A huge 55/65"-screen displaying 3D Vision in 4K kind of gives you the best of both worlds since you will enjoy the highest possible visual 3D quality and due to the huge display-size that is occupying your entire field-of-view (not only in length but also in height) you will also maximize the immersion aspect of any given game.
That is exactly what SURROUND IS NOT! IS NOT A ZOOM EFFECT. Getting a bigger screen is JUST A BIG ZOOM EFFECT.
Surround is about MAINTAINING the same HEIGHT but adding extra FOV.
For the record:
- YOU as a stereo person, have a very limited VERTICAL FOV and a HUGE WIDE HORIZONTAL FOV. Exactly like Surround. I can understand the bezels bothering, but what you say...
Why don't you get a Projector then and Project on a 120000 feet wall? Sure You can actually get the characters to be 1:1 scale with you;) Is that about Seeing more? (exactly what surrounds Offers?)
Clearly you like the "immersion" factor, while some people like me, like the "overview" factor;)
Surrounds adds OVERVIEW .
4K (Passive with half height resolution lost which is basically a 21:9 Monitor with full resolution 3840x1080) adds more "immersion".
I guess it depends on what each and everyone likes;) Like I said, I would make a Surround out of 3x4K TVs ^_^
But swapping Surround for a Bigger SINGLE screen still fails to make me see how is more awesome than Surround :-s (Oh and Believe me I tried it like 4 times with different sets and such... Even for 2D is meh... I feel like I have horse glasses on;)) )
I am not "defending" Surround because I have it and paid money for it (It will actually be cheaper to go to single BIG Monitor/TV). But I do defend the "immersion" factor;) which you can't compare it even with a 101' TV (unless you make Surround out of those TVs ^_^)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="lohan"]Just found the confirmation on a German VR-related web page that the Playstation Pro benefits for existing VR-games and those to be released in the future will include Supersampling.
[url]http://www.vrnerds.de/playstation-vr-battlezone-mit-supersampling-auf-der-ps4-pro/[/url]
For me this is great news since I currently rate the visual quality of Playstation VR even a little higher than Rift and Vive (Super-Sampling included) due to the PS VR's minimized screen-door effect. Taking into consideration how much of a difference the sumper-sampling does for overall visual quality of the Rift and the Vive I guess great things are about to happen......[/quote]
Interesting that you like it best.
I got a chance to try a friends PSVR, and also thought it looks pretty good. I wouldn't personally put it over the Vive, but it was definitely in the 'good-enough' category.
The thing I noticed the most was the lack of resolution itself, a blurriness that did not have a corresponding graininess like Vive. That's probably the lack of SDE because of a better screen.
Having used super-sampling extensively on both Vive and Rift, I think what you might be seeing is that the games for Rift and Vive default to fairly bad resolutions in order to meet the GTX 970 min spec. When I crank up the SS even a little bit, it's my impression that the Vive is better visually than what I saw with PSVR.
One other thing I think I noticed was that PSVR does multi-res shading. Could be the lenses, but I think I saw a distinct line in the game, where it went super blurry/super low res. Pretty sure they are doing the center at full resolution, and the outside edges at much lower resolution in order to have performance.
All in all, it was an OK experience, but the tracking is going to be too weak I think. Had multiple instances of floating room effect where it lost the headset, and the hands would not always track. I can really see this go either way for Sony, either makes a good success, or people treat it disdainfully like 3D.
To answer the OP question: Both.
They aren't the same, and the gaming experiences are completely different. Games for Surround do not translate into VR in any usable sense. And the VR experiences are looking for a completely different and deeper level of immersion, let's call it transportation.
When I play in 3D on my projector, I am fully immersed, it's a great experience. But in some scenarios in VR (only Vive), I am genuinely transported to a new location.
lohan said:Just found the confirmation on a German VR-related web page that the Playstation Pro benefits for existing VR-games and those to be released in the future will include Supersampling.
For me this is great news since I currently rate the visual quality of Playstation VR even a little higher than Rift and Vive (Super-Sampling included) due to the PS VR's minimized screen-door effect. Taking into consideration how much of a difference the sumper-sampling does for overall visual quality of the Rift and the Vive I guess great things are about to happen......
Interesting that you like it best.
I got a chance to try a friends PSVR, and also thought it looks pretty good. I wouldn't personally put it over the Vive, but it was definitely in the 'good-enough' category.
The thing I noticed the most was the lack of resolution itself, a blurriness that did not have a corresponding graininess like Vive. That's probably the lack of SDE because of a better screen.
Having used super-sampling extensively on both Vive and Rift, I think what you might be seeing is that the games for Rift and Vive default to fairly bad resolutions in order to meet the GTX 970 min spec. When I crank up the SS even a little bit, it's my impression that the Vive is better visually than what I saw with PSVR.
One other thing I think I noticed was that PSVR does multi-res shading. Could be the lenses, but I think I saw a distinct line in the game, where it went super blurry/super low res. Pretty sure they are doing the center at full resolution, and the outside edges at much lower resolution in order to have performance.
All in all, it was an OK experience, but the tracking is going to be too weak I think. Had multiple instances of floating room effect where it lost the headset, and the hands would not always track. I can really see this go either way for Sony, either makes a good success, or people treat it disdainfully like 3D.
To answer the OP question: Both.
They aren't the same, and the gaming experiences are completely different. Games for Surround do not translate into VR in any usable sense. And the VR experiences are looking for a completely different and deeper level of immersion, let's call it transportation.
When I play in 3D on my projector, I am fully immersed, it's a great experience. But in some scenarios in VR (only Vive), I am genuinely transported to a new location.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though. [/quote]
Hi. I am looking for alternatives to 3d vision surround.
With 4k 3d, can you achieve 60fps in 3d at 4k resolutions or is the resolution halved or do you get less than 60fps?[/quote]
With 2 980ti's you should be able to hit 60 fps at 3840x1600 in most games. I'd say loook at how a game runs in 4K on 1 980 ti. That will give you a rough idea of how it will run on 980 ti sli in 3D@4K. Seems to be a good measuring stick for me.
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though.
Hi. I am looking for alternatives to 3d vision surround.
With 4k 3d, can you achieve 60fps in 3d at 4k resolutions or is the resolution halved or do you get less than 60fps?
With 2 980ti's you should be able to hit 60 fps at 3840x1600 in most games. I'd say loook at how a game runs in 4K on 1 980 ti. That will give you a rough idea of how it will run on 980 ti sli in 3D@4K. Seems to be a good measuring stick for me.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
http://www.vrnerds.de/playstation-vr-battlezone-mit-supersampling-auf-der-ps4-pro/
For me this is great news since I currently rate the visual quality of Playstation VR even a little higher than Rift and Vive (Super-Sampling included) due to the PS VR's minimized screen-door effect. Taking into consideration how much of a difference the sumper-sampling does for overall visual quality of the Rift and the Vive I guess great things are about to happen......
The only way I would purchase a Playstation VR set is if it had full PC support.
Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55
PROS:
3D Vision surround:
-immersive gamming in 3D
-almost all games can work in 3d (tks to the 3d community gods)
-3 monitors can have wider uses then a VR helmet outside gaming
-wider game genres (strategy, rpg, shooters, mmo, action games, basically everything)
-supports both 1'st person and 3'rd person games
VR:
-full 360 immersion
-good horror games
-very good shooter games (in case of fully supported)
CONS:
3D Vision surround:
-very expensive gear
-very demanding setup
-must learn how to apply 3d patches, use nvidea inspector, 3D Profile Manager, optimize separation and convergence, etc (makes you part of the community which is good)
VR:
-very expensive gear
-very demanding setup
-super few games fully supported and nobody can fix the ones that are not
-restricted to 1'st person games (no strategy games, no 3'rd person rpg's etc)
-shooters need full support where you move your gun independent of where you look (otherwise it's like having a gun on your nose)
If you are using a GTX 970 on a Asus VG278 then you are like me, which means i can barelly play GTA V on max settings on one single monitor, for 3 monitors or VR i would need at least a GTX 1080 if not two in SLI. But that's just me, i'm very sensitive to motion sickness, everything below 45 fps makes me puke :D
i7-6700K 4.0GHz, GTX 970, 8 Gb DDR4, SSD
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.
But i Also can't stand the idea of bezels. So surround would be out for me, unless done with projectors and edge blending.
But those i kind of the things you can't ask, you have to Try out and change things if not happy.
Many tv users don't like to use projectors or its just matter of whats available for the money wanted to invest (Bad word :D)
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
Helifax you Forgot the heat blast. no need to go to the beach when there is 30 degree outside, your inside in a dark room with 2 projectors and a pc heating the room :D
If you go projector setup AC is a must have unless you live in arctica.
But my point exactly. Personal preferences.
Everything that makes more than one function is a compromise!
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Hi. I am looking for alternatives to 3d vision surround.
With 4k 3d, can you achieve 60fps in 3d at 4k resolutions or is the resolution halved or do you get less than 60fps?
Rampage 4 Extreme
4960x oc 4.6 Ghz, H100i watercooler
2080 Ti Sli
Windows 7 Ultimate Edition
5760x1080 PG258Q/2560x1440 PG278Q
Allthough 3D @ fullhd per eye is about same looking in terms of sharpness as 2d with 4K plus the depth.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Another reason why I prefer the 55/65" 4K solution for 3D Vision is the fact that the bigger scale also allows for more details to be noticeable.
I noticed that especially in Beat'em Ups like Mortal Kombat X or in Sports Games like the WWE 2K-series. For example when playing on a single 24/27" monitor or even in Surround I never noticed how detailed the characters change their facial expressions according to what they are doing or suffering at specific moments. With 4K 3D Vision on a big screen you have the needed scale plus the needed visual quality to really enjoy those finer details. And trust me...it really makes a difference!
Yes but it looks about the same. Well its quite hard to compare as 2d is only 2d and booring Flat after 3D.
But it feels kind of same. Allthough i game with big screen i have never ever found my self thinking
"Man i need more resolution" maby more lumens or frames. Never resolution the 3840x1080 is quite
Enough
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
nVidia should seriously consider something like selling licenses to us that makes our "not 3d vision ready" displays 3d vision ready. I'm also playing through an EDID for my 27SA950 sammy. At the time when I saw this monitor in the shop all I noticed was the big "120Hz" on the box. Drove home and did some "thorough" research (since I waited 5 years for something similar and got very excited). Drove back the next day and bought it. Thought I was one step closer to 3d vision till I found out about all the back stabbing going on between the two companies.
A system where you could buy a license to "activate" your gpu's 3d vision shouldn't be to hard to implement? To those who want to stick to the 3d vision kit, and the monitor they approve, 3d vision should be free.
Im enjoying 3d vision without the 3d vision kit for years now. But I'm willing to pay nVidia for a 3d vision license because its definitely worth it! Even if it meant paying a monthly fee to have them keep an eye out for us 3d gamers I wouldn't hesitate.
What percentage of gamers in the world are stereoscopic gamers? (Including Tridef and PS VR). 5% perhaps? Of that 5% how many are 3d vision gamers? Unless that % grows we will always be stuck with the problems we have. From all the issues reading through the different forums/threads you could see that compatibility and user friendliness are the biggest. If nVidia would've made it easier at least for its own customers, the 3d community would grow and devs would make an effort to focus on the stereoscopic side of their designs. The demand from the 3d community aint big enough for the devs to hear the cry. Thats just how I see it..
Like your reasoning lohan! Seems like a very expensive lady this one. If its using passive glasses theres no ghosting? With the EDID do you get funny things like monitor switching off at random times?
This were my worrees with my current setup. Its hanging on from Jan 2013 now. When you take out the big bucks you want something that last you at least 4-5 years. But feel its time for a more powerfull gpu. From Bo3B's feedback I read somewhere I realised the VR gear wont be ready anytime soon.
I hope the devs come up with a plan for this XD. Been pondering about this for a long time now. They should start with the old school "duck hunt" where the dog could laugh at you for missing lol
That is exactly what SURROUND IS NOT! IS NOT A ZOOM EFFECT. Getting a bigger screen is JUST A BIG ZOOM EFFECT.
Surround is about MAINTAINING the same HEIGHT but adding extra FOV.
For the record:
- YOU as a stereo person, have a very limited VERTICAL FOV and a HUGE WIDE HORIZONTAL FOV. Exactly like Surround. I can understand the bezels bothering, but what you say...
Why don't you get a Projector then and Project on a 120000 feet wall? Sure You can actually get the characters to be 1:1 scale with you;) Is that about Seeing more? (exactly what surrounds Offers?)
Clearly you like the "immersion" factor, while some people like me, like the "overview" factor;)
Surrounds adds OVERVIEW .
4K (Passive with half height resolution lost which is basically a 21:9 Monitor with full resolution 3840x1080) adds more "immersion".
I guess it depends on what each and everyone likes;) Like I said, I would make a Surround out of 3x4K TVs ^_^
But swapping Surround for a Bigger SINGLE screen still fails to make me see how is more awesome than Surround :-s (Oh and Believe me I tried it like 4 times with different sets and such... Even for 2D is meh... I feel like I have horse glasses on;)) )
I am not "defending" Surround because I have it and paid money for it (It will actually be cheaper to go to single BIG Monitor/TV). But I do defend the "immersion" factor;) which you can't compare it even with a 101' TV (unless you make Surround out of those TVs ^_^)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
Interesting that you like it best.
I got a chance to try a friends PSVR, and also thought it looks pretty good. I wouldn't personally put it over the Vive, but it was definitely in the 'good-enough' category.
The thing I noticed the most was the lack of resolution itself, a blurriness that did not have a corresponding graininess like Vive. That's probably the lack of SDE because of a better screen.
Having used super-sampling extensively on both Vive and Rift, I think what you might be seeing is that the games for Rift and Vive default to fairly bad resolutions in order to meet the GTX 970 min spec. When I crank up the SS even a little bit, it's my impression that the Vive is better visually than what I saw with PSVR.
One other thing I think I noticed was that PSVR does multi-res shading. Could be the lenses, but I think I saw a distinct line in the game, where it went super blurry/super low res. Pretty sure they are doing the center at full resolution, and the outside edges at much lower resolution in order to have performance.
All in all, it was an OK experience, but the tracking is going to be too weak I think. Had multiple instances of floating room effect where it lost the headset, and the hands would not always track. I can really see this go either way for Sony, either makes a good success, or people treat it disdainfully like 3D.
To answer the OP question: Both.
They aren't the same, and the gaming experiences are completely different. Games for Surround do not translate into VR in any usable sense. And the VR experiences are looking for a completely different and deeper level of immersion, let's call it transportation.
When I play in 3D on my projector, I am fully immersed, it's a great experience. But in some scenarios in VR (only Vive), I am genuinely transported to a new location.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I'm gonna have to agree on the 4K passive solution over surround. I made the switch and couldn't be happier. When I want a surround feel I go with a custom 3840x1600 or 3840x1440 ultra wide resolution. I have a 49 inch LG 49UB8500 that sits where my monitors used to, $500 on ebay. I have no VR experience though.
Hi. I am looking for alternatives to 3d vision surround.
With 4k 3d, can you achieve 60fps in 3d at 4k resolutions or is the resolution halved or do you get less than 60fps?
With 2 980ti's you should be able to hit 60 fps at 3840x1600 in most games. I'd say loook at how a game runs in 4K on 1 980 ti. That will give you a rough idea of how it will run on 980 ti sli in 3D@4K. Seems to be a good measuring stick for me.
Gigabyte Gaming 5 Z170X, i7-6700K @ 4.4ghz, Asus GTX 2080 ti Strix OC , 16gb DDR4 Corsair Vengence 2666, LG 60uh8500 and 49ub8500 passive 4K 3D EDID, Dell S2716DG.