Me wonders if chiz remembers [b]"PS, my goal isn't not to offend anyone. I just am stating how I see the situation. /smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':smile:' />"[/b]
I just simply pointed out some flaws in your negativity. Bashing a solution to a problem we all face because you think it is less important than what you want done is not cool. Bashing me for doing so, also not cool.
Its simple to see you have taken this personal. I didn't want to quote you the first time but I believed "Shifted Separation" should be protected from a biased opinion that clearly hates it. The negative comments were made from a viewpoint of someone who doesn't even seem to have tried this option for themselves before discrediting it. Again I dont want to reply but I feel compelled. If this turns out to be just a Flame War I want no part of that. I simply want the truth and facts out for all to see. Let everyone chose for themselves based on facts NOT on here say.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Actually in 99.9% of games that render crosshair/cursor at screen depth I can compensate by using low depth and high convergence settings so that everything lines up just fine as the crosshair/sites will still be at screen depth but everything you aim at will be behind that, and anything between the crosshair/ironsight will feel like they are pop-out. This is not ideal as it greatly limits the sense of depth in a scene, but it is still vastly superior to having multiple crosshair or having to constantly squint or stare at multiple crosshair/cursors, imo.[/quote]Recommending a completely incorrect 3D configuration is not a good way to go. In addition to a bad 3D experience this also won't actually fix the aiming problem. Anything not at the exact same depth as the sight will still be inaccurate to shoot at. Same as before. What is needed is a sight that changes depth to match the target OR a sight that is dead on target to start with. When a moving sight is not an option Shifted Separation is a method to make the sight accurate again. Its not a perfect magic bullet but it maintains a proper 3D viewing configuration and offers a working sight.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Also, if you were trying to garner support with your description of iZ3D's implementation I'm not sure you succeeded, as I don't think vertigo is really on the list of features people are looking for when checking out 3D Vision.[/quote]Mentioning the sideways feeling was to demonstrate that I have actually tried the shifted setting and know what I am talking about. It was also to be open and honest. I don't just start supporting something because I am a fanboy. I support because I have tested it and have found it to be acceptable. Mentioning somethings prows and cons is important when giving ones honest opinion about it. As far as the walking sideways feeling goes, it is almost un-noticeable for myself. For some it may be stronger. Same with viewing 3D in general. Many people enjoy it. Others complain of bad headaches and hate it. For each person the experience it may be different. They should be allowed to chose for themselves. They should NOT chose for others based only on their opinion. If you don't like it don't use it. Simple really.
[quote][quote name='oracletriplex' date='26 March 2011 - 07:14 AM' timestamp='1301123668' post='1213334']
I know what that is, and it's a hard sell even for me. It would be far easier to get the developers to fix the iron sights depth in game then no squinting is required.[/quote]
[quote name='LCountach' date='26 March 2011 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1301176269' post='1213658']
You seem to think it would be easier to get every game company(HUNDREDS of them) to make special patches to fix each game VS NVidia coming up with a single solution to fix everything in one shot? I simply can not agree with that idea at all. Sorry.[/quote]
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Again this is a bit of a generalization and oversimplification of the problem, as not everyone is going to be happy with your proposed solution. Compared to flawless 3D implemention where everything is rendered at the proper depth for both eyes, I think everyone can agree this is the best S3D implementation. Personally, I know for a fact if it came down to squinting to aim with 3D Vision.... or just playing in 2D, I'd just play the game in 2D or not play it all in favor or a game that played better in S3D.[/quote][/quote]Basically, oracletriplex wants all the game companies to make patches to fix their game to work correctly in 3D. I respond by saying Nvidia making their drivers work with all games in a single shot is better. I didn't make any mention of iZ3D. I simply said Nvidia making a fix in one shot is far better than making hundreds of patches. However now that you mention it, iZ3D's option could be a good alternative for some players if no better one is offered. If you don't like a feature, please don't tell everyone it sucks because you don't like it. Especially if you have never even tried it.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Again, I fully understand the "realism" argument of real-life marksmen aiming with one eye, but as AndrewF and many others have also countered, you don't even close one eye even when S3D is disabled and most gamers have never fired a gun in their lives, so this argument is a moot point. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a term used for entertainment and media called suspension of disbelief, if not this link can perhaps help you understand better: http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html[/quote]Like I said in my post, if you understand the realism the marksman info wasn't for you. I also said I am fully able to use the iZ3D option with both eyes open. It is actually far easier than real marksmanship. The realism argument is far from moot. Many gamers do like the appeal of realism some gaming types offer. They have expressed their opinion about the realism in this very thread. "Suspension of Disbelief" is totally cool and I am fully on-board with it. Perhaps you should take a page from your own book and suspending your disbelief that iZ3D's solution is viable. Having 2 sights onscreen doesn't break the immersion when one of them actually works. Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I don't know how that would go though. You seem to have a biased opinion without even trying it. That kind of breaks the idea behind "Suspension of Disbelief" before even giving it a chance to work its magic.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Basically, "realism" in entertainment should never trump game dynamics, fluidity, or fun-factor by over-emphasizing the mundane or making the trivial overly tedious. Having to close one eye constantly to mirror your in-game actions makes gaming and aiming a chore, plain and simple, not to mention the end result completely defeats the point of stereo 3D to begin with because you are no longer viewing a S3D image with both eyes, you're actually seeing a flat 2D image with just a single eye. Again, this is a campy workaround, not a solution imo.[/quote]Like I said before. I keep both eyes open with the shifted eye option. I simply ignore the extra sight and let my brain use my dominant eye's sight for shooting. I don't find it a "chore, plain and simple". I maintain the 3D effect just fine.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Just as much as you "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do", I hate the attitude of those who insist their non-optimal, unpopular workarounds are more important and deserve more attention than the flawless support and implemention we know is possible without any such workarounds. Given how many hit games are out there now without proper profiles, I'd say those games are more deserving of Nvidia's attention so that EVERYONE can enjoy their 3D Vision with both eyes wide open, not with one shut half the time each time they do something as simple as aiming.[/quote]LOL, this ones funny. I don't remember "Insisting" this was "More Important". I simply expressing that Shifted Separation is a viable option and should not be disregarded. It seems much more obvious you want to "Insist" that your opinion is more important. I would not have even said anything if you hadn't started bashing what I have tested and know to be a workable solution. There are also others that have used it and like the OPTION to use it when needed. Its all about options. I have nothing against making all games work for everyone. Unfortunately there have been only 3 ways to make this happen so far. #1 Disable ingame sights and use the Laser. #2 Fix each problem on a game by game basis. #3 Shifted Separation. #1 Is seldom an option unfortunately and is the game makers fault. #2 It has great results but is very work intensive. Therefore it has happened only for a select few games. #3 Isn't perfect but it does work and it works for the largest number of games from the options we have. Well it would but its not even an option with "3D Vision" at the moment unfortunately. This brings me to the reason why I said "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do". NVidia's 3D drivers are by FAR the most restrictive. If you run into problems the user has the least amount of options to resolve the problem. They simply tells us "You cant do that" when we clearly know its possible but the option was removed or never added in the first place.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']A better solution imo would be the one proposed a few days ago with multiple depth/convergence presets that could be bound to different hotkeys. Then you could configure 2 different depth/convergence settings so that if you did need to aim down ironsights or a scope, you could configure proper convergence/depth for that view and then seamlessly toggle that setting by binding it to the same button as your ADS (Aim Down Sights) button, so RMB for example would change to Preset 2 and also bring up Aim Down Sight mode simultaneously, and ofc, not have to squint or close one eye at any point to avoid problems with stereo crosstalk.[/quote]Depth/Convergence Presets are an option NVidia needs desperately! Unfortunately you have completely missed the reason why. Cameras/Views change often in many games. Unfortunately we are only able to make one Depth/Convergence setting. When the camera changes that Depth/Convergence setting is seldom correct for the next view. chiz I totally understand what you are proposing. Unfortunately that can never work. Targets will always be at an infinite number of different distances away from the player. There is no way to set enough presets for every distance. Additionally there would be no way to know what preset would be the correct distance for the present target. Even in scope view, that is simply another camera closer to the target. This scope camera will still be plagued by the same "infinite number of different distances" that the main camera is. On top of all that. Constantly changing the convergence to match the depth of the target would not provide a good 3D experience.
[b]"The main difference here though is that you don't see any crosshair with the other eye, and certainly not one that's incorrectly placed relative to the target. If you could completely disable the crosshair in your non-dominant eye and also choose your offset then this would be a more viable solution."[/b]
Shifted Separation is damn close to what they use. This is simply a situation where the user can learn to ignore the extra sight. Like I have said before, if you don't like it don't use it.
[b]"And my personal standing on the issue is implement it if its not too difficult or doesn't interfere with development of more important features or game compatibility efforts. The user has the discretion of deciding if this feature is important enough at the time of purchase, so any decision was made by the user when they bought the kit. Not everyone is going to get everything they want and Nvidia absolutely has the discretion of deciding what features to implement or not based on what they think will result in the best end-user experience for their product. If you don't think so, then you'll NEVER be satisfied with any product until you reset your expectations to ones based in realism (sorry couldn't resist the double entendre)."[/b]
Why even post in here about what features you want if all decisions should be made by NVidia? Ever heard "The customer is always right."? Your comment that our requests are not based in reality is unfortunately quite mistaken. Shifted Separation is a viable and simple solution to a current issue we all face. Many users agree on this. You simply don't agree and can't seem to accept that others may not see it your way. I don't have a problem with you not liking a feature. I do have a problem with you bashing it and ruining a chance for others to try it for themselves.
[b]"Yes they certainly look to produce a "polished" product with flawless support when possible because that generally produces the best results. What this means is working with the developers during development to make sure 3D Vision is seamlessly implemented. We've seen the results of their efforts in games that are "3D Vision Ready" and I don't think anyone, even you, would argue your workaround deserves more attention from Nvidia than working with developers in the latest and greatest games. When it works, its incredible, the problem isn't with Nvidia's workflow and implementation, its just that there's not enough games coming out with this kind of support. Now, if given the choice would you want Nvidia to work on looking backward and making old games look mediocre in 3D Vision? Or would prefer they look forward and focus on getting current and future titles working well with 3D Vision? Obviously they are not doing a great job atm of working on new releases, so I'd certainly want them to refocus on that first before looking at non-optimal workarounds."[/b]
Again when did I say "More Attention"? Not to mention, I am not the only one wanting this feature. I have already explained why a game by game basis fix/development will never cover enough games for everyone's taste. Shifted Separation is a viable workaround that will work with most games New and Old. This give players an option to use that is playable while a specific profile is worked on. That is if one ever does get made. I also hate to say it but actually [url="http://3dvision-blog.com/trying-to-play-the-game-crysys-2-in-stereo-3d-mode-with-3d-vision/"]Crysis 2[/url] is an example of a game being developed for 3D that didn't go so well. Same typical restrictive crap again. TDU2 is another example. TDU2 has built in 3D support but they have chosen to lock convergence adjustment from 3D Vision. Unfortunately like most games, the convergence in TDU2 is setup only for one camera and there is a distinct lack of 3D for the InCar and FirstPerson views.
I would also like to point out this [url="http://3dvision-blog.com/driver-updates-for-nvidia-3d-vision-ddd-tridef-3d-and-iz3d-driver/"]Article[/url] for you reading. This simply states what most of us know already. NVidia has the most money to develop the best 3D product available. It also highlights the lack of control the user base has to fix issues. It goes on to praise the other options for their openness on allowing users to configure games and solve issues themselves. All NVidia needs to be the hands down best solution is listen to its user base and make an Advanced Configuration Feature.
Me wonders if chiz remembers "PS, my goal isn't not to offend anyone. I just am stating how I see the situation. /smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':smile:' />"
I just simply pointed out some flaws in your negativity. Bashing a solution to a problem we all face because you think it is less important than what you want done is not cool. Bashing me for doing so, also not cool.
Its simple to see you have taken this personal. I didn't want to quote you the first time but I believed "Shifted Separation" should be protected from a biased opinion that clearly hates it. The negative comments were made from a viewpoint of someone who doesn't even seem to have tried this option for themselves before discrediting it. Again I dont want to reply but I feel compelled. If this turns out to be just a Flame War I want no part of that. I simply want the truth and facts out for all to see. Let everyone chose for themselves based on facts NOT on here say.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Actually in 99.9% of games that render crosshair/cursor at screen depth I can compensate by using low depth and high convergence settings so that everything lines up just fine as the crosshair/sites will still be at screen depth but everything you aim at will be behind that, and anything between the crosshair/ironsight will feel like they are pop-out. This is not ideal as it greatly limits the sense of depth in a scene, but it is still vastly superior to having multiple crosshair or having to constantly squint or stare at multiple crosshair/cursors, imo.Recommending a completely incorrect 3D configuration is not a good way to go. In addition to a bad 3D experience this also won't actually fix the aiming problem. Anything not at the exact same depth as the sight will still be inaccurate to shoot at. Same as before. What is needed is a sight that changes depth to match the target OR a sight that is dead on target to start with. When a moving sight is not an option Shifted Separation is a method to make the sight accurate again. Its not a perfect magic bullet but it maintains a proper 3D viewing configuration and offers a working sight.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Also, if you were trying to garner support with your description of iZ3D's implementation I'm not sure you succeeded, as I don't think vertigo is really on the list of features people are looking for when checking out 3D Vision.Mentioning the sideways feeling was to demonstrate that I have actually tried the shifted setting and know what I am talking about. It was also to be open and honest. I don't just start supporting something because I am a fanboy. I support because I have tested it and have found it to be acceptable. Mentioning somethings prows and cons is important when giving ones honest opinion about it. As far as the walking sideways feeling goes, it is almost un-noticeable for myself. For some it may be stronger. Same with viewing 3D in general. Many people enjoy it. Others complain of bad headaches and hate it. For each person the experience it may be different. They should be allowed to chose for themselves. They should NOT chose for others based only on their opinion. If you don't like it don't use it. Simple really.
[quote name='oracletriplex' date='26 March 2011 - 07:14 AM' timestamp='1301123668' post='1213334']
I know what that is, and it's a hard sell even for me. It would be far easier to get the developers to fix the iron sights depth in game then no squinting is required.
[quote name='LCountach' date='26 March 2011 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1301176269' post='1213658']
You seem to think it would be easier to get every game company(HUNDREDS of them) to make special patches to fix each game VS NVidia coming up with a single solution to fix everything in one shot? I simply can not agree with that idea at all. Sorry.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Again this is a bit of a generalization and oversimplification of the problem, as not everyone is going to be happy with your proposed solution. Compared to flawless 3D implemention where everything is rendered at the proper depth for both eyes, I think everyone can agree this is the best S3D implementation. Personally, I know for a fact if it came down to squinting to aim with 3D Vision.... or just playing in 2D, I'd just play the game in 2D or not play it all in favor or a game that played better in S3D.Basically, oracletriplex wants all the game companies to make patches to fix their game to work correctly in 3D. I respond by saying Nvidia making their drivers work with all games in a single shot is better. I didn't make any mention of iZ3D. I simply said Nvidia making a fix in one shot is far better than making hundreds of patches. However now that you mention it, iZ3D's option could be a good alternative for some players if no better one is offered. If you don't like a feature, please don't tell everyone it sucks because you don't like it. Especially if you have never even tried it.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Again, I fully understand the "realism" argument of real-life marksmen aiming with one eye, but as AndrewF and many others have also countered, you don't even close one eye even when S3D is disabled and most gamers have never fired a gun in their lives, so this argument is a moot point. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a term used for entertainment and media called suspension of disbelief, if not this link can perhaps help you understand better: http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.htmlLike I said in my post, if you understand the realism the marksman info wasn't for you. I also said I am fully able to use the iZ3D option with both eyes open. It is actually far easier than real marksmanship. The realism argument is far from moot. Many gamers do like the appeal of realism some gaming types offer. They have expressed their opinion about the realism in this very thread. "Suspension of Disbelief" is totally cool and I am fully on-board with it. Perhaps you should take a page from your own book and suspending your disbelief that iZ3D's solution is viable. Having 2 sights onscreen doesn't break the immersion when one of them actually works. Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I don't know how that would go though. You seem to have a biased opinion without even trying it. That kind of breaks the idea behind "Suspension of Disbelief" before even giving it a chance to work its magic.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Basically, "realism" in entertainment should never trump game dynamics, fluidity, or fun-factor by over-emphasizing the mundane or making the trivial overly tedious. Having to close one eye constantly to mirror your in-game actions makes gaming and aiming a chore, plain and simple, not to mention the end result completely defeats the point of stereo 3D to begin with because you are no longer viewing a S3D image with both eyes, you're actually seeing a flat 2D image with just a single eye. Again, this is a campy workaround, not a solution imo.Like I said before. I keep both eyes open with the shifted eye option. I simply ignore the extra sight and let my brain use my dominant eye's sight for shooting. I don't find it a "chore, plain and simple". I maintain the 3D effect just fine.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Just as much as you "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do", I hate the attitude of those who insist their non-optimal, unpopular workarounds are more important and deserve more attention than the flawless support and implemention we know is possible without any such workarounds. Given how many hit games are out there now without proper profiles, I'd say those games are more deserving of Nvidia's attention so that EVERYONE can enjoy their 3D Vision with both eyes wide open, not with one shut half the time each time they do something as simple as aiming.LOL, this ones funny. I don't remember "Insisting" this was "More Important". I simply expressing that Shifted Separation is a viable option and should not be disregarded. It seems much more obvious you want to "Insist" that your opinion is more important. I would not have even said anything if you hadn't started bashing what I have tested and know to be a workable solution. There are also others that have used it and like the OPTION to use it when needed. Its all about options. I have nothing against making all games work for everyone. Unfortunately there have been only 3 ways to make this happen so far. #1 Disable ingame sights and use the Laser. #2 Fix each problem on a game by game basis. #3 Shifted Separation. #1 Is seldom an option unfortunately and is the game makers fault. #2 It has great results but is very work intensive. Therefore it has happened only for a select few games. #3 Isn't perfect but it does work and it works for the largest number of games from the options we have. Well it would but its not even an option with "3D Vision" at the moment unfortunately. This brings me to the reason why I said "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do". NVidia's 3D drivers are by FAR the most restrictive. If you run into problems the user has the least amount of options to resolve the problem. They simply tells us "You cant do that" when we clearly know its possible but the option was removed or never added in the first place.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']A better solution imo would be the one proposed a few days ago with multiple depth/convergence presets that could be bound to different hotkeys. Then you could configure 2 different depth/convergence settings so that if you did need to aim down ironsights or a scope, you could configure proper convergence/depth for that view and then seamlessly toggle that setting by binding it to the same button as your ADS (Aim Down Sights) button, so RMB for example would change to Preset 2 and also bring up Aim Down Sight mode simultaneously, and ofc, not have to squint or close one eye at any point to avoid problems with stereo crosstalk.Depth/Convergence Presets are an option NVidia needs desperately! Unfortunately you have completely missed the reason why. Cameras/Views change often in many games. Unfortunately we are only able to make one Depth/Convergence setting. When the camera changes that Depth/Convergence setting is seldom correct for the next view. chiz I totally understand what you are proposing. Unfortunately that can never work. Targets will always be at an infinite number of different distances away from the player. There is no way to set enough presets for every distance. Additionally there would be no way to know what preset would be the correct distance for the present target. Even in scope view, that is simply another camera closer to the target. This scope camera will still be plagued by the same "infinite number of different distances" that the main camera is. On top of all that. Constantly changing the convergence to match the depth of the target would not provide a good 3D experience.
"The main difference here though is that you don't see any crosshair with the other eye, and certainly not one that's incorrectly placed relative to the target. If you could completely disable the crosshair in your non-dominant eye and also choose your offset then this would be a more viable solution."
Shifted Separation is damn close to what they use. This is simply a situation where the user can learn to ignore the extra sight. Like I have said before, if you don't like it don't use it.
"And my personal standing on the issue is implement it if its not too difficult or doesn't interfere with development of more important features or game compatibility efforts. The user has the discretion of deciding if this feature is important enough at the time of purchase, so any decision was made by the user when they bought the kit. Not everyone is going to get everything they want and Nvidia absolutely has the discretion of deciding what features to implement or not based on what they think will result in the best end-user experience for their product. If you don't think so, then you'll NEVER be satisfied with any product until you reset your expectations to ones based in realism (sorry couldn't resist the double entendre)."
Why even post in here about what features you want if all decisions should be made by NVidia? Ever heard "The customer is always right."? Your comment that our requests are not based in reality is unfortunately quite mistaken. Shifted Separation is a viable and simple solution to a current issue we all face. Many users agree on this. You simply don't agree and can't seem to accept that others may not see it your way. I don't have a problem with you not liking a feature. I do have a problem with you bashing it and ruining a chance for others to try it for themselves.
"Yes they certainly look to produce a "polished" product with flawless support when possible because that generally produces the best results. What this means is working with the developers during development to make sure 3D Vision is seamlessly implemented. We've seen the results of their efforts in games that are "3D Vision Ready" and I don't think anyone, even you, would argue your workaround deserves more attention from Nvidia than working with developers in the latest and greatest games. When it works, its incredible, the problem isn't with Nvidia's workflow and implementation, its just that there's not enough games coming out with this kind of support. Now, if given the choice would you want Nvidia to work on looking backward and making old games look mediocre in 3D Vision? Or would prefer they look forward and focus on getting current and future titles working well with 3D Vision? Obviously they are not doing a great job atm of working on new releases, so I'd certainly want them to refocus on that first before looking at non-optimal workarounds."
Again when did I say "More Attention"? Not to mention, I am not the only one wanting this feature. I have already explained why a game by game basis fix/development will never cover enough games for everyone's taste. Shifted Separation is a viable workaround that will work with most games New and Old. This give players an option to use that is playable while a specific profile is worked on. That is if one ever does get made. I also hate to say it but actually Crysis 2 is an example of a game being developed for 3D that didn't go so well. Same typical restrictive crap again. TDU2 is another example. TDU2 has built in 3D support but they have chosen to lock convergence adjustment from 3D Vision. Unfortunately like most games, the convergence in TDU2 is setup only for one camera and there is a distinct lack of 3D for the InCar and FirstPerson views.
I would also like to point out this Article for you reading. This simply states what most of us know already. NVidia has the most money to develop the best 3D product available. It also highlights the lack of control the user base has to fix issues. It goes on to praise the other options for their openness on allowing users to configure games and solve issues themselves. All NVidia needs to be the hands down best solution is listen to its user base and make an Advanced Configuration Feature.
No need to fight, guys. The basic truth is that the right and left shift is a workaround, not a cure for the problem. Seems to me that having to close one eye is going way across the line in order to achieve the desired effect.
No need to fight, guys. The basic truth is that the right and left shift is a workaround, not a cure for the problem. Seems to me that having to close one eye is going way across the line in order to achieve the desired effect.
AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 2.8GHZ
8GB RAM
Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb @ 2048x1536 @ 85hz
Edimensional glasses and Nvidia 3D Vision
[quote name='LCountach' date='29 March 2011 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1301379333' post='1215051'][/quote]
You seem to be confused, I'm not taking anything personally, I'm simply detailing the shortcomings of your proposed solution and explaining why many including myself do not find it a viable solution to objects/points being rendered at the wrong depth in Stereo 3D. It seems you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance when you've actually provided enough "honest feedback" to clearly illustrate why the mass majority of Stereo 3D users would instantly reject your solution.
Here are some tidbits of info that potential users should know about your proprosed solution, again, confirmed and corroborated by you, so they can decide for themselves if its something they think might be useful or worthwhile:
[list]
[*]1) Convergence-shift requires you to physically mirror your in-game actions by squinting one eye to aim, turning your Stereo 3D image into a single, flat 2D image viewed in one eye in order to aim accurately. Alternatively, you can try and keep both eyes open and see two cross-hairs but force your dominant eye to focus on only a single cross-hair.
[*]2) Convergence-shift results in multiple crosshair/cursors, so you need to ignore or focus on only the single accurate crosshair/cursor in your dominant eye. This is similar to ignoring the two inaccurate crosshair when using Nvidia laser sight in games that do not render crosshair at correct depth.
[*]3) Convergence-shift may cause vertigo, nausea, motion sickness or other discomfort unless you are a chameleon and have eyeballs that move independently of each other.
[/list]
If anyone bothered to read your comments they would quickly notice that you need to make constant disclaimers that this solution is acceptable to YOU, or does not bother YOU that much. What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many, including myself, to the point I would simply disable Stereo 3D and play the game in 2D instead. In the process, I would instantly double my FPS and brightness and gain tangible benefits from 120Hz refresh rate, particularly the very same FPS titles of concern here that use crosshairs. The very mention of having to close one eye to aim and thereby defeat the entire premise of Stereo 3D is enough of a deal-breaker for me. Who would want to pay $200+ expecting 3D with both eyes only to find out the workaround is to close one eye just to aim???
So in summary, I'm really indifferent to this solution even though I think it sucks and would personally never, ever use it. If its not that difficult to implement, another option is always good, but I would PERSONALLY prefer Nvidia work on better supporting games to avoid these kinds of workarouds by working with developers to ensure all objects including UI and crosshairs/cursors are rendered at the proper depth. Please don't take this personally, as there is nothing personal about what I've written above. Thanks.
Maybe you can start up a post detailing this solution and include some JPS screenshots so people can see for themselves the end result? Maybe Nvidia rep can attach a poll and ask how many people would find this an acceptable solution?
[quote name='LCountach' date='29 March 2011 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1301379333' post='1215051']
You seem to be confused, I'm not taking anything personally, I'm simply detailing the shortcomings of your proposed solution and explaining why many including myself do not find it a viable solution to objects/points being rendered at the wrong depth in Stereo 3D. It seems you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance when you've actually provided enough "honest feedback" to clearly illustrate why the mass majority of Stereo 3D users would instantly reject your solution.
Here are some tidbits of info that potential users should know about your proprosed solution, again, confirmed and corroborated by you, so they can decide for themselves if its something they think might be useful or worthwhile:
1) Convergence-shift requires you to physically mirror your in-game actions by squinting one eye to aim, turning your Stereo 3D image into a single, flat 2D image viewed in one eye in order to aim accurately. Alternatively, you can try and keep both eyes open and see two cross-hairs but force your dominant eye to focus on only a single cross-hair.
2) Convergence-shift results in multiple crosshair/cursors, so you need to ignore or focus on only the single accurate crosshair/cursor in your dominant eye. This is similar to ignoring the two inaccurate crosshair when using Nvidia laser sight in games that do not render crosshair at correct depth.
3) Convergence-shift may cause vertigo, nausea, motion sickness or other discomfort unless you are a chameleon and have eyeballs that move independently of each other.
If anyone bothered to read your comments they would quickly notice that you need to make constant disclaimers that this solution is acceptable to YOU, or does not bother YOU that much. What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many, including myself, to the point I would simply disable Stereo 3D and play the game in 2D instead. In the process, I would instantly double my FPS and brightness and gain tangible benefits from 120Hz refresh rate, particularly the very same FPS titles of concern here that use crosshairs. The very mention of having to close one eye to aim and thereby defeat the entire premise of Stereo 3D is enough of a deal-breaker for me. Who would want to pay $200+ expecting 3D with both eyes only to find out the workaround is to close one eye just to aim???
So in summary, I'm really indifferent to this solution even though I think it sucks and would personally never, ever use it. If its not that difficult to implement, another option is always good, but I would PERSONALLY prefer Nvidia work on better supporting games to avoid these kinds of workarouds by working with developers to ensure all objects including UI and crosshairs/cursors are rendered at the proper depth. Please don't take this personally, as there is nothing personal about what I've written above. Thanks.
Maybe you can start up a post detailing this solution and include some JPS screenshots so people can see for themselves the end result? Maybe Nvidia rep can attach a poll and ask how many people would find this an acceptable solution?
LOL, chiz. The claim you haven't taken this personally is laughable really. You and I both got under each others skin by highlighting Quotes we disagreed with. Agreeing to disagree is cool. Attacking others viewpoints with comments like, "unless you are a chameleon" and "If anyone bothered to read your comments" are clearly derogatory. There are countless other derogatory comments that would take too long to point out. Summery is, there is a very clear targeted negative tone just dripping form your posts. I responded with my own tone. To claim anything else is just BS.
[b]"What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many."[/b]
I haven't missed that at all. You constantly try to say things like "I insist I am more important" and "I fail to realize". Unfortunately, when I ask you to quote where I said such things you ignore the question and try to discredit me somewhere else. I got to ask again. Where did I say "These problems are NOT straight deal-breakers for many."? I simply state Shifted Separation is a viable option. I have success with it and others have to. I repeated many times. "If you don't like it. Don't use it." I never tried to force anything on you or others. I simply wanted my opinion you carry the same equal weight as any other. Saying a feature you don't like is less important degrades others who do want it. Attacking our viewpoint when we defend it is also offensive. I have never said the features/fixes you want are less important and should only be done if their easy. You have flat out said that about what I want.
This whole thing should have never started. Simply stating you don't like a purposed feature would have sufficed. Instead you said things like "its a terrible idea". You constantly insisted it will always be a bad experience for the majority. I say "It works for me". Immediately I and others like me that like the feature (squinting or not) must be made to look like oddballs. You did your best to make everyone hate it before they even tried it. Just like you seem to have done. You say [b]"you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance."[/b] Comment after comment you have made indications you read about squinting and immediately hated the idea. This leads me to believe you have not actually tried it fairly for yourself to see if it worked. That is why I made statements that indicate your [b]"ignorance"(your word)[/b] on the subject. Even if it does work "terrible" for you. That does not mean it will be so dis-satisfactory to everyone. You also repeatedly said "other features would be more deserving of the driver team's attention." On and On you go with "your view/idea is moot because whatever reason" comments. Those comments were obviously not to bring out facts but instead to degrade me and Shifted Separation. Read carefully and you will see I tried only to discredit you in retaliation to negative attacks and/or technical statements that are incorrect. I must admit I am offended and some of that may have added extra. Your last post was a shameless effort that failed to hide your aggressive effort to discredit Shifted Separation and mostly myself because I stood up to you and dared to disagree.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's cool. Don't make out like your "Indifferent". You clearly put alot of effort in posting back and forth for someone who is "indifferent" and "not taking anything personally." Your endless twisting of mine and your own words is tiresome. I am tired of unraveling them.
like I said, I disagree with you. You disagree with me. It should have started and ended with just that. Lets please end this without any more hidden or blatantly obvious attacks to discredit each other.
LOL, chiz. The claim you haven't taken this personally is laughable really. You and I both got under each others skin by highlighting Quotes we disagreed with. Agreeing to disagree is cool. Attacking others viewpoints with comments like, "unless you are a chameleon" and "If anyone bothered to read your comments" are clearly derogatory. There are countless other derogatory comments that would take too long to point out. Summery is, there is a very clear targeted negative tone just dripping form your posts. I responded with my own tone. To claim anything else is just BS.
"What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many."
I haven't missed that at all. You constantly try to say things like "I insist I am more important" and "I fail to realize". Unfortunately, when I ask you to quote where I said such things you ignore the question and try to discredit me somewhere else. I got to ask again. Where did I say "These problems are NOT straight deal-breakers for many."? I simply state Shifted Separation is a viable option. I have success with it and others have to. I repeated many times. "If you don't like it. Don't use it." I never tried to force anything on you or others. I simply wanted my opinion you carry the same equal weight as any other. Saying a feature you don't like is less important degrades others who do want it. Attacking our viewpoint when we defend it is also offensive. I have never said the features/fixes you want are less important and should only be done if their easy. You have flat out said that about what I want.
This whole thing should have never started. Simply stating you don't like a purposed feature would have sufficed. Instead you said things like "its a terrible idea". You constantly insisted it will always be a bad experience for the majority. I say "It works for me". Immediately I and others like me that like the feature (squinting or not) must be made to look like oddballs. You did your best to make everyone hate it before they even tried it. Just like you seem to have done. You say "you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance." Comment after comment you have made indications you read about squinting and immediately hated the idea. This leads me to believe you have not actually tried it fairly for yourself to see if it worked. That is why I made statements that indicate your "ignorance"(your word) on the subject. Even if it does work "terrible" for you. That does not mean it will be so dis-satisfactory to everyone. You also repeatedly said "other features would be more deserving of the driver team's attention." On and On you go with "your view/idea is moot because whatever reason" comments. Those comments were obviously not to bring out facts but instead to degrade me and Shifted Separation. Read carefully and you will see I tried only to discredit you in retaliation to negative attacks and/or technical statements that are incorrect. I must admit I am offended and some of that may have added extra. Your last post was a shameless effort that failed to hide your aggressive effort to discredit Shifted Separation and mostly myself because I stood up to you and dared to disagree.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's cool. Don't make out like your "Indifferent". You clearly put alot of effort in posting back and forth for someone who is "indifferent" and "not taking anything personally." Your endless twisting of mine and your own words is tiresome. I am tired of unraveling them.
like I said, I disagree with you. You disagree with me. It should have started and ended with just that. Lets please end this without any more hidden or blatantly obvious attacks to discredit each other.
[quote name='LCountach' date='30 March 2011 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1301464451' post='1215702'][/quote]
Sorry to disappoint you, but as I've said earlier, I haven't taken any of this personally, if you did that certainly wasn't the intent. I have no problems agreeing to disagree and had no problems discussing and explaining why I felt convergence-shift was a terrible idea. Indeed, my reply and given opinion wasn't even in reply to one of your posts to begin with. You keep insisting you felt the need to provide your 2cents so that the "truth and facts out for all to see" yet time and again, you haven't contradicted or debunked anything I've said about this feature or why I think it sucks, you've only further clarified and corroborated everything I've said in each of your posts in even greater detail.
As you may have noticed, I stopped quoting you verbatim a few replies ago because anyone who carefully and thoroughly reads your comments would be able to quickly decide for themselves whether they think its a viable solution or not. And no they don't need to have tried it for themselves to know its not viable for their needs......rest assured, I don't need to step in a pile of dog poo to know what my shoe is going to smell like afterwards. Based on your comments alone, I feel comfortable saying I, along with the vast majority of users expecting S3D with both eyes, would reject any such solution and would not consider it a viable alternative to all objects/crosshairs/cursors rendered at the proper depths in S3D.
In any case, I'll offer a more constructive approach again. We can both post a few screenshots of problematic games that render crosshairs or cursors in 2D or screen depth and see which solution people prefer. Yours with convergence-shift or mine with low depth/high convergence and crosshair/cursor at screen depth. Then people can decide for themselves which they think is a more viable solution. Maybe you'll be surprised at how well it works despite your belief its a "completely incorrect 3D configuration"?
Here's a list of a few games with common complaints about crosshairs/cursors at screen depth that I'd be willing to demonstrate and compare, please feel free to add/suggest your own:
Darksiders (Aim mode and normal 3rd person)
Gears of War
Transformers War for Cybertron
Splinter Cell Conviction
Dragon Age
Titan Quest
Dawn of War II
[quote name='LCountach' date='30 March 2011 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1301464451' post='1215702']
Sorry to disappoint you, but as I've said earlier, I haven't taken any of this personally, if you did that certainly wasn't the intent. I have no problems agreeing to disagree and had no problems discussing and explaining why I felt convergence-shift was a terrible idea. Indeed, my reply and given opinion wasn't even in reply to one of your posts to begin with. You keep insisting you felt the need to provide your 2cents so that the "truth and facts out for all to see" yet time and again, you haven't contradicted or debunked anything I've said about this feature or why I think it sucks, you've only further clarified and corroborated everything I've said in each of your posts in even greater detail.
As you may have noticed, I stopped quoting you verbatim a few replies ago because anyone who carefully and thoroughly reads your comments would be able to quickly decide for themselves whether they think its a viable solution or not. And no they don't need to have tried it for themselves to know its not viable for their needs......rest assured, I don't need to step in a pile of dog poo to know what my shoe is going to smell like afterwards. Based on your comments alone, I feel comfortable saying I, along with the vast majority of users expecting S3D with both eyes, would reject any such solution and would not consider it a viable alternative to all objects/crosshairs/cursors rendered at the proper depths in S3D.
In any case, I'll offer a more constructive approach again. We can both post a few screenshots of problematic games that render crosshairs or cursors in 2D or screen depth and see which solution people prefer. Yours with convergence-shift or mine with low depth/high convergence and crosshair/cursor at screen depth. Then people can decide for themselves which they think is a more viable solution. Maybe you'll be surprised at how well it works despite your belief its a "completely incorrect 3D configuration"?
Here's a list of a few games with common complaints about crosshairs/cursors at screen depth that I'd be willing to demonstrate and compare, please feel free to add/suggest your own:
[quote name='Xerion404' date='20 March 2011 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1300626723' post='1210460']
The bad thing is the compatibility list in the current 3dvision drivers has everything from the old 3d drivers in it as well, eventhough a lot of those games don't work anymore on 3dvision. Some are even opengl, when it's not supported by 3dvision at all.
[/quote]
I think you are talking about an Issue I have had lately..
Metal Gear Solid, Nightmare Creatures, Turok Dinosaur Hunter, House of the Dead 1 all older Win 95 & 98 games have Nvidia 3D Vision Ratings on the Nvidia Control Panel 3D Games Compatibility List.. Those games are not found on the Nvidia Featured Games list on the Nvidia 3D Games web page..
The issue I have is this:
I bought Metal Gear Solid specifically for 3D Vision.. It got an Excellent rating.. I can't get the game to run in 3D Vision at all.
What did Nvidia do just up and end compatibility with Metal Gear Solid but not remove Metal Gear off it's compatiblilty list on the Control Panels List?
My problem is I want to play Metal Gear in 3D vsion..
My issue or Nvidia 3D Vison Failure I want fixed is this::
Nvidia needs to post new lists under 3D vision compatiblity..
#1 What settings and drivers were used to get those Legacy Win 98 & Win 95 games to work in 3D vison at the time..
#2 Nvidia needs to notify games no longer supported after 3D Vision firmware updates..
#3 Nvidia should post a list of former drivers that work with what specific games and what settings were used to execute the best successful 3D vision..
Also show how to roll back to older drivers cause my Windows 7 keeps auto installing new drivers. I can't install legacy 159 Graphics drivers if I want for example even if I turn off automatic updates I can't go back to old Nvidia Drivers.
I just want to play those old games in 3D vision as they were advertised.. Dang it man. Like a thief in the night I feel I got robbed. Or they pulled the old bait and switch tactic.
Can I get either my old driver back and info on how to get my game to work right like it should by telling me exactly what settings Nvidia used to get that game to work, or can Nvidia just release a new driver that has 100 percent backwards compatibility with all their old drivers.
[quote name='Xerion404' date='20 March 2011 - 01:12 PM' timestamp='1300626723' post='1210460']
The bad thing is the compatibility list in the current 3dvision drivers has everything from the old 3d drivers in it as well, eventhough a lot of those games don't work anymore on 3dvision. Some are even opengl, when it's not supported by 3dvision at all.
I think you are talking about an Issue I have had lately..
Metal Gear Solid, Nightmare Creatures, Turok Dinosaur Hunter, House of the Dead 1 all older Win 95 & 98 games have Nvidia 3D Vision Ratings on the Nvidia Control Panel 3D Games Compatibility List.. Those games are not found on the Nvidia Featured Games list on the Nvidia 3D Games web page..
The issue I have is this:
I bought Metal Gear Solid specifically for 3D Vision.. It got an Excellent rating.. I can't get the game to run in 3D Vision at all.
What did Nvidia do just up and end compatibility with Metal Gear Solid but not remove Metal Gear off it's compatiblilty list on the Control Panels List?
My problem is I want to play Metal Gear in 3D vsion..
My issue or Nvidia 3D Vison Failure I want fixed is this::
Nvidia needs to post new lists under 3D vision compatiblity..
#1 What settings and drivers were used to get those Legacy Win 98 & Win 95 games to work in 3D vison at the time..
#2 Nvidia needs to notify games no longer supported after 3D Vision firmware updates..
#3 Nvidia should post a list of former drivers that work with what specific games and what settings were used to execute the best successful 3D vision..
Also show how to roll back to older drivers cause my Windows 7 keeps auto installing new drivers. I can't install legacy 159 Graphics drivers if I want for example even if I turn off automatic updates I can't go back to old Nvidia Drivers.
I just want to play those old games in 3D vision as they were advertised.. Dang it man. Like a thief in the night I feel I got robbed. Or they pulled the old bait and switch tactic.
Can I get either my old driver back and info on how to get my game to work right like it should by telling me exactly what settings Nvidia used to get that game to work, or can Nvidia just release a new driver that has 100 percent backwards compatibility with all their old drivers.
Andrew is there any progress on the preset hotkeys for 3D Vision? And there has been a trend lately of developers locking their convergence, which makes for a poor 3D experience. Can you tell them to knock that off?
Battlefield 3 in particular you have to adjust the convergence via the in game console while in multiplayer. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want punkbuster to ban me for that ****. Seems you could "encourage" the developers not to lock their convergence from now on.
Andrew is there any progress on the preset hotkeys for 3D Vision? And there has been a trend lately of developers locking their convergence, which makes for a poor 3D experience. Can you tell them to knock that off?
Battlefield 3 in particular you have to adjust the convergence via the in game console while in multiplayer. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want punkbuster to ban me for that ****. Seems you could "encourage" the developers not to lock their convergence from now on.
AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 2.8GHZ
8GB RAM
Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb @ 2048x1536 @ 85hz
Edimensional glasses and Nvidia 3D Vision
Yes, an update on the game profiles would be nice. Profiles are much needed, so that comfortable levels of convergence could be achieved in any game scene and the user doesn't settle with a sub-par stereo experience.
Yes, an update on the game profiles would be nice. Profiles are much needed, so that comfortable levels of convergence could be achieved in any game scene and the user doesn't settle with a sub-par stereo experience.
I would love the PR peeps from nVidia giving their game dev contacts a gentle nudge towards 3D Vision's 'advanced' settings saying, "See? No need for you to lock convergence, only advanced users will play with it anyway"
I would love the PR peeps from nVidia giving their game dev contacts a gentle nudge towards 3D Vision's 'advanced' settings saying, "See? No need for you to lock convergence, only advanced users will play with it anyway"
There's MilkDrop for Winamp and foobar2k. It was working in 3D when I was on Win7 but that was like more than 5 years ago I think and with very old drivers ofc.
There's MilkDrop for Winamp and foobar2k. It was working in 3D when I was on Win7 but that was like more than 5 years ago I think and with very old drivers ofc.
I just simply pointed out some flaws in your negativity. Bashing a solution to a problem we all face because you think it is less important than what you want done is not cool. Bashing me for doing so, also not cool.
Its simple to see you have taken this personal. I didn't want to quote you the first time but I believed "Shifted Separation" should be protected from a biased opinion that clearly hates it. The negative comments were made from a viewpoint of someone who doesn't even seem to have tried this option for themselves before discrediting it. Again I dont want to reply but I feel compelled. If this turns out to be just a Flame War I want no part of that. I simply want the truth and facts out for all to see. Let everyone chose for themselves based on facts NOT on here say.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Actually in 99.9% of games that render crosshair/cursor at screen depth I can compensate by using low depth and high convergence settings so that everything lines up just fine as the crosshair/sites will still be at screen depth but everything you aim at will be behind that, and anything between the crosshair/ironsight will feel like they are pop-out. This is not ideal as it greatly limits the sense of depth in a scene, but it is still vastly superior to having multiple crosshair or having to constantly squint or stare at multiple crosshair/cursors, imo.[/quote]Recommending a completely incorrect 3D configuration is not a good way to go. In addition to a bad 3D experience this also won't actually fix the aiming problem. Anything not at the exact same depth as the sight will still be inaccurate to shoot at. Same as before. What is needed is a sight that changes depth to match the target OR a sight that is dead on target to start with. When a moving sight is not an option Shifted Separation is a method to make the sight accurate again. Its not a perfect magic bullet but it maintains a proper 3D viewing configuration and offers a working sight.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Also, if you were trying to garner support with your description of iZ3D's implementation I'm not sure you succeeded, as I don't think vertigo is really on the list of features people are looking for when checking out 3D Vision.[/quote]Mentioning the sideways feeling was to demonstrate that I have actually tried the shifted setting and know what I am talking about. It was also to be open and honest. I don't just start supporting something because I am a fanboy. I support because I have tested it and have found it to be acceptable. Mentioning somethings prows and cons is important when giving ones honest opinion about it. As far as the walking sideways feeling goes, it is almost un-noticeable for myself. For some it may be stronger. Same with viewing 3D in general. Many people enjoy it. Others complain of bad headaches and hate it. For each person the experience it may be different. They should be allowed to chose for themselves. They should NOT chose for others based only on their opinion. If you don't like it don't use it. Simple really.
[quote][quote name='oracletriplex' date='26 March 2011 - 07:14 AM' timestamp='1301123668' post='1213334']
I know what that is, and it's a hard sell even for me. It would be far easier to get the developers to fix the iron sights depth in game then no squinting is required.[/quote]
[quote name='LCountach' date='26 March 2011 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1301176269' post='1213658']
You seem to think it would be easier to get every game company(HUNDREDS of them) to make special patches to fix each game VS NVidia coming up with a single solution to fix everything in one shot? I simply can not agree with that idea at all. Sorry.[/quote]
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Again this is a bit of a generalization and oversimplification of the problem, as not everyone is going to be happy with your proposed solution. Compared to flawless 3D implemention where everything is rendered at the proper depth for both eyes, I think everyone can agree this is the best S3D implementation. Personally, I know for a fact if it came down to squinting to aim with 3D Vision.... or just playing in 2D, I'd just play the game in 2D or not play it all in favor or a game that played better in S3D.[/quote][/quote]Basically, oracletriplex wants all the game companies to make patches to fix their game to work correctly in 3D. I respond by saying Nvidia making their drivers work with all games in a single shot is better. I didn't make any mention of iZ3D. I simply said Nvidia making a fix in one shot is far better than making hundreds of patches. However now that you mention it, iZ3D's option could be a good alternative for some players if no better one is offered. If you don't like a feature, please don't tell everyone it sucks because you don't like it. Especially if you have never even tried it.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Again, I fully understand the "realism" argument of real-life marksmen aiming with one eye, but as AndrewF and many others have also countered, you don't even close one eye even when S3D is disabled and most gamers have never fired a gun in their lives, so this argument is a moot point. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a term used for entertainment and media called suspension of disbelief, if not this link can perhaps help you understand better: http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html[/quote]Like I said in my post, if you understand the realism the marksman info wasn't for you. I also said I am fully able to use the iZ3D option with both eyes open. It is actually far easier than real marksmanship. The realism argument is far from moot. Many gamers do like the appeal of realism some gaming types offer. They have expressed their opinion about the realism in this very thread. "Suspension of Disbelief" is totally cool and I am fully on-board with it. Perhaps you should take a page from your own book and suspending your disbelief that iZ3D's solution is viable. Having 2 sights onscreen doesn't break the immersion when one of them actually works. Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I don't know how that would go though. You seem to have a biased opinion without even trying it. That kind of breaks the idea behind "Suspension of Disbelief" before even giving it a chance to work its magic.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Basically, "realism" in entertainment should never trump game dynamics, fluidity, or fun-factor by over-emphasizing the mundane or making the trivial overly tedious. Having to close one eye constantly to mirror your in-game actions makes gaming and aiming a chore, plain and simple, not to mention the end result completely defeats the point of stereo 3D to begin with because you are no longer viewing a S3D image with both eyes, you're actually seeing a flat 2D image with just a single eye. Again, this is a campy workaround, not a solution imo.[/quote]Like I said before. I keep both eyes open with the shifted eye option. I simply ignore the extra sight and let my brain use my dominant eye's sight for shooting. I don't find it a "chore, plain and simple". I maintain the 3D effect just fine.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Just as much as you "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do", I hate the attitude of those who insist their non-optimal, unpopular workarounds are more important and deserve more attention than the flawless support and implemention we know is possible without any such workarounds. Given how many hit games are out there now without proper profiles, I'd say those games are more deserving of Nvidia's attention so that EVERYONE can enjoy their 3D Vision with both eyes wide open, not with one shut half the time each time they do something as simple as aiming.[/quote]LOL, this ones funny. I don't remember "Insisting" this was "More Important". I simply expressing that Shifted Separation is a viable option and should not be disregarded. It seems much more obvious you want to "Insist" that your opinion is more important. I would not have even said anything if you hadn't started bashing what I have tested and know to be a workable solution. There are also others that have used it and like the OPTION to use it when needed. Its all about options. I have nothing against making all games work for everyone. Unfortunately there have been only 3 ways to make this happen so far. #1 Disable ingame sights and use the Laser. #2 Fix each problem on a game by game basis. #3 Shifted Separation. #1 Is seldom an option unfortunately and is the game makers fault. #2 It has great results but is very work intensive. Therefore it has happened only for a select few games. #3 Isn't perfect but it does work and it works for the largest number of games from the options we have. Well it would but its not even an option with "3D Vision" at the moment unfortunately. This brings me to the reason why I said "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do". NVidia's 3D drivers are by FAR the most restrictive. If you run into problems the user has the least amount of options to resolve the problem. They simply tells us "You cant do that" when we clearly know its possible but the option was removed or never added in the first place.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']A better solution imo would be the one proposed a few days ago with multiple depth/convergence presets that could be bound to different hotkeys. Then you could configure 2 different depth/convergence settings so that if you did need to aim down ironsights or a scope, you could configure proper convergence/depth for that view and then seamlessly toggle that setting by binding it to the same button as your ADS (Aim Down Sights) button, so RMB for example would change to Preset 2 and also bring up Aim Down Sight mode simultaneously, and ofc, not have to squint or close one eye at any point to avoid problems with stereo crosstalk.[/quote]Depth/Convergence Presets are an option NVidia needs desperately! Unfortunately you have completely missed the reason why. Cameras/Views change often in many games. Unfortunately we are only able to make one Depth/Convergence setting. When the camera changes that Depth/Convergence setting is seldom correct for the next view. chiz I totally understand what you are proposing. Unfortunately that can never work. Targets will always be at an infinite number of different distances away from the player. There is no way to set enough presets for every distance. Additionally there would be no way to know what preset would be the correct distance for the present target. Even in scope view, that is simply another camera closer to the target. This scope camera will still be plagued by the same "infinite number of different distances" that the main camera is. On top of all that. Constantly changing the convergence to match the depth of the target would not provide a good 3D experience.
[b]"The main difference here though is that you don't see any crosshair with the other eye, and certainly not one that's incorrectly placed relative to the target. If you could completely disable the crosshair in your non-dominant eye and also choose your offset then this would be a more viable solution."[/b]
Shifted Separation is damn close to what they use. This is simply a situation where the user can learn to ignore the extra sight. Like I have said before, if you don't like it don't use it.
[b]"And my personal standing on the issue is implement it if its not too difficult or doesn't interfere with development of more important features or game compatibility efforts. The user has the discretion of deciding if this feature is important enough at the time of purchase, so any decision was made by the user when they bought the kit. Not everyone is going to get everything they want and Nvidia absolutely has the discretion of deciding what features to implement or not based on what they think will result in the best end-user experience for their product. If you don't think so, then you'll NEVER be satisfied with any product until you reset your expectations to ones based in realism (sorry couldn't resist the double entendre)."[/b]
Why even post in here about what features you want if all decisions should be made by NVidia? Ever heard "The customer is always right."? Your comment that our requests are not based in reality is unfortunately quite mistaken. Shifted Separation is a viable and simple solution to a current issue we all face. Many users agree on this. You simply don't agree and can't seem to accept that others may not see it your way. I don't have a problem with you not liking a feature. I do have a problem with you bashing it and ruining a chance for others to try it for themselves.
[b]"Yes they certainly look to produce a "polished" product with flawless support when possible because that generally produces the best results. What this means is working with the developers during development to make sure 3D Vision is seamlessly implemented. We've seen the results of their efforts in games that are "3D Vision Ready" and I don't think anyone, even you, would argue your workaround deserves more attention from Nvidia than working with developers in the latest and greatest games. When it works, its incredible, the problem isn't with Nvidia's workflow and implementation, its just that there's not enough games coming out with this kind of support. Now, if given the choice would you want Nvidia to work on looking backward and making old games look mediocre in 3D Vision? Or would prefer they look forward and focus on getting current and future titles working well with 3D Vision? Obviously they are not doing a great job atm of working on new releases, so I'd certainly want them to refocus on that first before looking at non-optimal workarounds."[/b]
Again when did I say "More Attention"? Not to mention, I am not the only one wanting this feature. I have already explained why a game by game basis fix/development will never cover enough games for everyone's taste. Shifted Separation is a viable workaround that will work with most games New and Old. This give players an option to use that is playable while a specific profile is worked on. That is if one ever does get made. I also hate to say it but actually [url="http://3dvision-blog.com/trying-to-play-the-game-crysys-2-in-stereo-3d-mode-with-3d-vision/"]Crysis 2[/url] is an example of a game being developed for 3D that didn't go so well. Same typical restrictive crap again. TDU2 is another example. TDU2 has built in 3D support but they have chosen to lock convergence adjustment from 3D Vision. Unfortunately like most games, the convergence in TDU2 is setup only for one camera and there is a distinct lack of 3D for the InCar and FirstPerson views.
I would also like to point out this [url="http://3dvision-blog.com/driver-updates-for-nvidia-3d-vision-ddd-tridef-3d-and-iz3d-driver/"]Article[/url] for you reading. This simply states what most of us know already. NVidia has the most money to develop the best 3D product available. It also highlights the lack of control the user base has to fix issues. It goes on to praise the other options for their openness on allowing users to configure games and solve issues themselves. All NVidia needs to be the hands down best solution is listen to its user base and make an Advanced Configuration Feature.
I just simply pointed out some flaws in your negativity. Bashing a solution to a problem we all face because you think it is less important than what you want done is not cool. Bashing me for doing so, also not cool.
Its simple to see you have taken this personal. I didn't want to quote you the first time but I believed "Shifted Separation" should be protected from a biased opinion that clearly hates it. The negative comments were made from a viewpoint of someone who doesn't even seem to have tried this option for themselves before discrediting it. Again I dont want to reply but I feel compelled. If this turns out to be just a Flame War I want no part of that. I simply want the truth and facts out for all to see. Let everyone chose for themselves based on facts NOT on here say.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Actually in 99.9% of games that render crosshair/cursor at screen depth I can compensate by using low depth and high convergence settings so that everything lines up just fine as the crosshair/sites will still be at screen depth but everything you aim at will be behind that, and anything between the crosshair/ironsight will feel like they are pop-out. This is not ideal as it greatly limits the sense of depth in a scene, but it is still vastly superior to having multiple crosshair or having to constantly squint or stare at multiple crosshair/cursors, imo.Recommending a completely incorrect 3D configuration is not a good way to go. In addition to a bad 3D experience this also won't actually fix the aiming problem. Anything not at the exact same depth as the sight will still be inaccurate to shoot at. Same as before. What is needed is a sight that changes depth to match the target OR a sight that is dead on target to start with. When a moving sight is not an option Shifted Separation is a method to make the sight accurate again. Its not a perfect magic bullet but it maintains a proper 3D viewing configuration and offers a working sight.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Also, if you were trying to garner support with your description of iZ3D's implementation I'm not sure you succeeded, as I don't think vertigo is really on the list of features people are looking for when checking out 3D Vision.Mentioning the sideways feeling was to demonstrate that I have actually tried the shifted setting and know what I am talking about. It was also to be open and honest. I don't just start supporting something because I am a fanboy. I support because I have tested it and have found it to be acceptable. Mentioning somethings prows and cons is important when giving ones honest opinion about it. As far as the walking sideways feeling goes, it is almost un-noticeable for myself. For some it may be stronger. Same with viewing 3D in general. Many people enjoy it. Others complain of bad headaches and hate it. For each person the experience it may be different. They should be allowed to chose for themselves. They should NOT chose for others based only on their opinion. If you don't like it don't use it. Simple really.
[quote name='LCountach' date='26 March 2011 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1301176269' post='1213658']
You seem to think it would be easier to get every game company(HUNDREDS of them) to make special patches to fix each game VS NVidia coming up with a single solution to fix everything in one shot? I simply can not agree with that idea at all. Sorry.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Again this is a bit of a generalization and oversimplification of the problem, as not everyone is going to be happy with your proposed solution. Compared to flawless 3D implemention where everything is rendered at the proper depth for both eyes, I think everyone can agree this is the best S3D implementation. Personally, I know for a fact if it came down to squinting to aim with 3D Vision.... or just playing in 2D, I'd just play the game in 2D or not play it all in favor or a game that played better in S3D.Basically, oracletriplex wants all the game companies to make patches to fix their game to work correctly in 3D. I respond by saying Nvidia making their drivers work with all games in a single shot is better. I didn't make any mention of iZ3D. I simply said Nvidia making a fix in one shot is far better than making hundreds of patches. However now that you mention it, iZ3D's option could be a good alternative for some players if no better one is offered. If you don't like a feature, please don't tell everyone it sucks because you don't like it. Especially if you have never even tried it.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']
Again, I fully understand the "realism" argument of real-life marksmen aiming with one eye, but as AndrewF and many others have also countered, you don't even close one eye even when S3D is disabled and most gamers have never fired a gun in their lives, so this argument is a moot point. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with a term used for entertainment and media called suspension of disbelief, if not this link can perhaps help you understand better: http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.htmlLike I said in my post, if you understand the realism the marksman info wasn't for you. I also said I am fully able to use the iZ3D option with both eyes open. It is actually far easier than real marksmanship. The realism argument is far from moot. Many gamers do like the appeal of realism some gaming types offer. They have expressed their opinion about the realism in this very thread. "Suspension of Disbelief" is totally cool and I am fully on-board with it. Perhaps you should take a page from your own book and suspending your disbelief that iZ3D's solution is viable. Having 2 sights onscreen doesn't break the immersion when one of them actually works. Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I don't know how that would go though. You seem to have a biased opinion without even trying it. That kind of breaks the idea behind "Suspension of Disbelief" before even giving it a chance to work its magic.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Basically, "realism" in entertainment should never trump game dynamics, fluidity, or fun-factor by over-emphasizing the mundane or making the trivial overly tedious. Having to close one eye constantly to mirror your in-game actions makes gaming and aiming a chore, plain and simple, not to mention the end result completely defeats the point of stereo 3D to begin with because you are no longer viewing a S3D image with both eyes, you're actually seeing a flat 2D image with just a single eye. Again, this is a campy workaround, not a solution imo.Like I said before. I keep both eyes open with the shifted eye option. I simply ignore the extra sight and let my brain use my dominant eye's sight for shooting. I don't find it a "chore, plain and simple". I maintain the 3D effect just fine.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']Just as much as you "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do", I hate the attitude of those who insist their non-optimal, unpopular workarounds are more important and deserve more attention than the flawless support and implemention we know is possible without any such workarounds. Given how many hit games are out there now without proper profiles, I'd say those games are more deserving of Nvidia's attention so that EVERYONE can enjoy their 3D Vision with both eyes wide open, not with one shut half the time each time they do something as simple as aiming.LOL, this ones funny. I don't remember "Insisting" this was "More Important". I simply expressing that Shifted Separation is a viable option and should not be disregarded. It seems much more obvious you want to "Insist" that your opinion is more important. I would not have even said anything if you hadn't started bashing what I have tested and know to be a workable solution. There are also others that have used it and like the OPTION to use it when needed. Its all about options. I have nothing against making all games work for everyone. Unfortunately there have been only 3 ways to make this happen so far. #1 Disable ingame sights and use the Laser. #2 Fix each problem on a game by game basis. #3 Shifted Separation. #1 Is seldom an option unfortunately and is the game makers fault. #2 It has great results but is very work intensive. Therefore it has happened only for a select few games. #3 Isn't perfect but it does work and it works for the largest number of games from the options we have. Well it would but its not even an option with "3D Vision" at the moment unfortunately. This brings me to the reason why I said "hate being told what "TO" and "NOT TO" do". NVidia's 3D drivers are by FAR the most restrictive. If you run into problems the user has the least amount of options to resolve the problem. They simply tells us "You cant do that" when we clearly know its possible but the option was removed or never added in the first place.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 March 2011 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1301349438' post='1214774']A better solution imo would be the one proposed a few days ago with multiple depth/convergence presets that could be bound to different hotkeys. Then you could configure 2 different depth/convergence settings so that if you did need to aim down ironsights or a scope, you could configure proper convergence/depth for that view and then seamlessly toggle that setting by binding it to the same button as your ADS (Aim Down Sights) button, so RMB for example would change to Preset 2 and also bring up Aim Down Sight mode simultaneously, and ofc, not have to squint or close one eye at any point to avoid problems with stereo crosstalk.Depth/Convergence Presets are an option NVidia needs desperately! Unfortunately you have completely missed the reason why. Cameras/Views change often in many games. Unfortunately we are only able to make one Depth/Convergence setting. When the camera changes that Depth/Convergence setting is seldom correct for the next view. chiz I totally understand what you are proposing. Unfortunately that can never work. Targets will always be at an infinite number of different distances away from the player. There is no way to set enough presets for every distance. Additionally there would be no way to know what preset would be the correct distance for the present target. Even in scope view, that is simply another camera closer to the target. This scope camera will still be plagued by the same "infinite number of different distances" that the main camera is. On top of all that. Constantly changing the convergence to match the depth of the target would not provide a good 3D experience.
"The main difference here though is that you don't see any crosshair with the other eye, and certainly not one that's incorrectly placed relative to the target. If you could completely disable the crosshair in your non-dominant eye and also choose your offset then this would be a more viable solution."
Shifted Separation is damn close to what they use. This is simply a situation where the user can learn to ignore the extra sight. Like I have said before, if you don't like it don't use it.
"And my personal standing on the issue is implement it if its not too difficult or doesn't interfere with development of more important features or game compatibility efforts. The user has the discretion of deciding if this feature is important enough at the time of purchase, so any decision was made by the user when they bought the kit. Not everyone is going to get everything they want and Nvidia absolutely has the discretion of deciding what features to implement or not based on what they think will result in the best end-user experience for their product. If you don't think so, then you'll NEVER be satisfied with any product until you reset your expectations to ones based in realism (sorry couldn't resist the double entendre)."
Why even post in here about what features you want if all decisions should be made by NVidia? Ever heard "The customer is always right."? Your comment that our requests are not based in reality is unfortunately quite mistaken. Shifted Separation is a viable and simple solution to a current issue we all face. Many users agree on this. You simply don't agree and can't seem to accept that others may not see it your way. I don't have a problem with you not liking a feature. I do have a problem with you bashing it and ruining a chance for others to try it for themselves.
"Yes they certainly look to produce a "polished" product with flawless support when possible because that generally produces the best results. What this means is working with the developers during development to make sure 3D Vision is seamlessly implemented. We've seen the results of their efforts in games that are "3D Vision Ready" and I don't think anyone, even you, would argue your workaround deserves more attention from Nvidia than working with developers in the latest and greatest games. When it works, its incredible, the problem isn't with Nvidia's workflow and implementation, its just that there's not enough games coming out with this kind of support. Now, if given the choice would you want Nvidia to work on looking backward and making old games look mediocre in 3D Vision? Or would prefer they look forward and focus on getting current and future titles working well with 3D Vision? Obviously they are not doing a great job atm of working on new releases, so I'd certainly want them to refocus on that first before looking at non-optimal workarounds."
Again when did I say "More Attention"? Not to mention, I am not the only one wanting this feature. I have already explained why a game by game basis fix/development will never cover enough games for everyone's taste. Shifted Separation is a viable workaround that will work with most games New and Old. This give players an option to use that is playable while a specific profile is worked on. That is if one ever does get made. I also hate to say it but actually Crysis 2 is an example of a game being developed for 3D that didn't go so well. Same typical restrictive crap again. TDU2 is another example. TDU2 has built in 3D support but they have chosen to lock convergence adjustment from 3D Vision. Unfortunately like most games, the convergence in TDU2 is setup only for one camera and there is a distinct lack of 3D for the InCar and FirstPerson views.
I would also like to point out this Article for you reading. This simply states what most of us know already. NVidia has the most money to develop the best 3D product available. It also highlights the lack of control the user base has to fix issues. It goes on to praise the other options for their openness on allowing users to configure games and solve issues themselves. All NVidia needs to be the hands down best solution is listen to its user base and make an Advanced Configuration Feature.
AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 2.8GHZ
8GB RAM
Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb @ 2048x1536 @ 85hz
Edimensional glasses and Nvidia 3D Vision
You seem to be confused, I'm not taking anything personally, I'm simply detailing the shortcomings of your proposed solution and explaining why many including myself do not find it a viable solution to objects/points being rendered at the wrong depth in Stereo 3D. It seems you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance when you've actually provided enough "honest feedback" to clearly illustrate why the mass majority of Stereo 3D users would instantly reject your solution.
Here are some tidbits of info that potential users should know about your proprosed solution, again, confirmed and corroborated by you, so they can decide for themselves if its something they think might be useful or worthwhile:
[list]
[*]1) Convergence-shift requires you to physically mirror your in-game actions by squinting one eye to aim, turning your Stereo 3D image into a single, flat 2D image viewed in one eye in order to aim accurately. Alternatively, you can try and keep both eyes open and see two cross-hairs but force your dominant eye to focus on only a single cross-hair.
[*]2) Convergence-shift results in multiple crosshair/cursors, so you need to ignore or focus on only the single accurate crosshair/cursor in your dominant eye. This is similar to ignoring the two inaccurate crosshair when using Nvidia laser sight in games that do not render crosshair at correct depth.
[*]3) Convergence-shift may cause vertigo, nausea, motion sickness or other discomfort unless you are a chameleon and have eyeballs that move independently of each other.
[/list]
If anyone bothered to read your comments they would quickly notice that you need to make constant disclaimers that this solution is acceptable to YOU, or does not bother YOU that much. What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many, including myself, to the point I would simply disable Stereo 3D and play the game in 2D instead. In the process, I would instantly double my FPS and brightness and gain tangible benefits from 120Hz refresh rate, particularly the very same FPS titles of concern here that use crosshairs. The very mention of having to close one eye to aim and thereby defeat the entire premise of Stereo 3D is enough of a deal-breaker for me. Who would want to pay $200+ expecting 3D with both eyes only to find out the workaround is to close one eye just to aim???
So in summary, I'm really indifferent to this solution even though I think it sucks and would personally never, ever use it. If its not that difficult to implement, another option is always good, but I would PERSONALLY prefer Nvidia work on better supporting games to avoid these kinds of workarouds by working with developers to ensure all objects including UI and crosshairs/cursors are rendered at the proper depth. Please don't take this personally, as there is nothing personal about what I've written above. Thanks.
Maybe you can start up a post detailing this solution and include some JPS screenshots so people can see for themselves the end result? Maybe Nvidia rep can attach a poll and ask how many people would find this an acceptable solution?
You seem to be confused, I'm not taking anything personally, I'm simply detailing the shortcomings of your proposed solution and explaining why many including myself do not find it a viable solution to objects/points being rendered at the wrong depth in Stereo 3D. It seems you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance when you've actually provided enough "honest feedback" to clearly illustrate why the mass majority of Stereo 3D users would instantly reject your solution.
Here are some tidbits of info that potential users should know about your proprosed solution, again, confirmed and corroborated by you, so they can decide for themselves if its something they think might be useful or worthwhile:
If anyone bothered to read your comments they would quickly notice that you need to make constant disclaimers that this solution is acceptable to YOU, or does not bother YOU that much. What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many, including myself, to the point I would simply disable Stereo 3D and play the game in 2D instead. In the process, I would instantly double my FPS and brightness and gain tangible benefits from 120Hz refresh rate, particularly the very same FPS titles of concern here that use crosshairs. The very mention of having to close one eye to aim and thereby defeat the entire premise of Stereo 3D is enough of a deal-breaker for me. Who would want to pay $200+ expecting 3D with both eyes only to find out the workaround is to close one eye just to aim???
So in summary, I'm really indifferent to this solution even though I think it sucks and would personally never, ever use it. If its not that difficult to implement, another option is always good, but I would PERSONALLY prefer Nvidia work on better supporting games to avoid these kinds of workarouds by working with developers to ensure all objects including UI and crosshairs/cursors are rendered at the proper depth. Please don't take this personally, as there is nothing personal about what I've written above. Thanks.
Maybe you can start up a post detailing this solution and include some JPS screenshots so people can see for themselves the end result? Maybe Nvidia rep can attach a poll and ask how many people would find this an acceptable solution?
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W
[b]"What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many."[/b]
I haven't missed that at all. You constantly try to say things like "I insist I am more important" and "I fail to realize". Unfortunately, when I ask you to quote where I said such things you ignore the question and try to discredit me somewhere else. I got to ask again. Where did I say "These problems are NOT straight deal-breakers for many."? I simply state Shifted Separation is a viable option. I have success with it and others have to. I repeated many times. "If you don't like it. Don't use it." I never tried to force anything on you or others. I simply wanted my opinion you carry the same equal weight as any other. Saying a feature you don't like is less important degrades others who do want it. Attacking our viewpoint when we defend it is also offensive. I have never said the features/fixes you want are less important and should only be done if their easy. You have flat out said that about what I want.
This whole thing should have never started. Simply stating you don't like a purposed feature would have sufficed. Instead you said things like "its a terrible idea". You constantly insisted it will always be a bad experience for the majority. I say "It works for me". Immediately I and others like me that like the feature (squinting or not) must be made to look like oddballs. You did your best to make everyone hate it before they even tried it. Just like you seem to have done. You say [b]"you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance."[/b] Comment after comment you have made indications you read about squinting and immediately hated the idea. This leads me to believe you have not actually tried it fairly for yourself to see if it worked. That is why I made statements that indicate your [b]"ignorance"(your word)[/b] on the subject. Even if it does work "terrible" for you. That does not mean it will be so dis-satisfactory to everyone. You also repeatedly said "other features would be more deserving of the driver team's attention." On and On you go with "your view/idea is moot because whatever reason" comments. Those comments were obviously not to bring out facts but instead to degrade me and Shifted Separation. Read carefully and you will see I tried only to discredit you in retaliation to negative attacks and/or technical statements that are incorrect. I must admit I am offended and some of that may have added extra. Your last post was a shameless effort that failed to hide your aggressive effort to discredit Shifted Separation and mostly myself because I stood up to you and dared to disagree.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's cool. Don't make out like your "Indifferent". You clearly put alot of effort in posting back and forth for someone who is "indifferent" and "not taking anything personally." Your endless twisting of mine and your own words is tiresome. I am tired of unraveling them.
like I said, I disagree with you. You disagree with me. It should have started and ended with just that. Lets please end this without any more hidden or blatantly obvious attacks to discredit each other.
"What you fail to realize is that most of these problems are straight deal-breakers for many."
I haven't missed that at all. You constantly try to say things like "I insist I am more important" and "I fail to realize". Unfortunately, when I ask you to quote where I said such things you ignore the question and try to discredit me somewhere else. I got to ask again. Where did I say "These problems are NOT straight deal-breakers for many."? I simply state Shifted Separation is a viable option. I have success with it and others have to. I repeated many times. "If you don't like it. Don't use it." I never tried to force anything on you or others. I simply wanted my opinion you carry the same equal weight as any other. Saying a feature you don't like is less important degrades others who do want it. Attacking our viewpoint when we defend it is also offensive. I have never said the features/fixes you want are less important and should only be done if their easy. You have flat out said that about what I want.
This whole thing should have never started. Simply stating you don't like a purposed feature would have sufficed. Instead you said things like "its a terrible idea". You constantly insisted it will always be a bad experience for the majority. I say "It works for me". Immediately I and others like me that like the feature (squinting or not) must be made to look like oddballs. You did your best to make everyone hate it before they even tried it. Just like you seem to have done. You say "you're the one who has taken it personally and feel anyone who does not agree with you (there are plenty, including Nvidia and their representatives) is speaking from a position of ignorance." Comment after comment you have made indications you read about squinting and immediately hated the idea. This leads me to believe you have not actually tried it fairly for yourself to see if it worked. That is why I made statements that indicate your "ignorance"(your word) on the subject. Even if it does work "terrible" for you. That does not mean it will be so dis-satisfactory to everyone. You also repeatedly said "other features would be more deserving of the driver team's attention." On and On you go with "your view/idea is moot because whatever reason" comments. Those comments were obviously not to bring out facts but instead to degrade me and Shifted Separation. Read carefully and you will see I tried only to discredit you in retaliation to negative attacks and/or technical statements that are incorrect. I must admit I am offended and some of that may have added extra. Your last post was a shameless effort that failed to hide your aggressive effort to discredit Shifted Separation and mostly myself because I stood up to you and dared to disagree.
I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's cool. Don't make out like your "Indifferent". You clearly put alot of effort in posting back and forth for someone who is "indifferent" and "not taking anything personally." Your endless twisting of mine and your own words is tiresome. I am tired of unraveling them.
like I said, I disagree with you. You disagree with me. It should have started and ended with just that. Lets please end this without any more hidden or blatantly obvious attacks to discredit each other.
Sorry to disappoint you, but as I've said earlier, I haven't taken any of this personally, if you did that certainly wasn't the intent. I have no problems agreeing to disagree and had no problems discussing and explaining why I felt convergence-shift was a terrible idea. Indeed, my reply and given opinion wasn't even in reply to one of your posts to begin with. You keep insisting you felt the need to provide your 2cents so that the "truth and facts out for all to see" yet time and again, you haven't contradicted or debunked anything I've said about this feature or why I think it sucks, you've only further clarified and corroborated everything I've said in each of your posts in even greater detail.
As you may have noticed, I stopped quoting you verbatim a few replies ago because anyone who carefully and thoroughly reads your comments would be able to quickly decide for themselves whether they think its a viable solution or not. And no they don't need to have tried it for themselves to know its not viable for their needs......rest assured, I don't need to step in a pile of dog poo to know what my shoe is going to smell like afterwards. Based on your comments alone, I feel comfortable saying I, along with the vast majority of users expecting S3D with both eyes, would reject any such solution and would not consider it a viable alternative to all objects/crosshairs/cursors rendered at the proper depths in S3D.
In any case, I'll offer a more constructive approach again. We can both post a few screenshots of problematic games that render crosshairs or cursors in 2D or screen depth and see which solution people prefer. Yours with convergence-shift or mine with low depth/high convergence and crosshair/cursor at screen depth. Then people can decide for themselves which they think is a more viable solution. Maybe you'll be surprised at how well it works despite your belief its a "completely incorrect 3D configuration"?
Here's a list of a few games with common complaints about crosshairs/cursors at screen depth that I'd be willing to demonstrate and compare, please feel free to add/suggest your own:
Darksiders (Aim mode and normal 3rd person)
Gears of War
Transformers War for Cybertron
Splinter Cell Conviction
Dragon Age
Titan Quest
Dawn of War II
Sorry to disappoint you, but as I've said earlier, I haven't taken any of this personally, if you did that certainly wasn't the intent. I have no problems agreeing to disagree and had no problems discussing and explaining why I felt convergence-shift was a terrible idea. Indeed, my reply and given opinion wasn't even in reply to one of your posts to begin with. You keep insisting you felt the need to provide your 2cents so that the "truth and facts out for all to see" yet time and again, you haven't contradicted or debunked anything I've said about this feature or why I think it sucks, you've only further clarified and corroborated everything I've said in each of your posts in even greater detail.
As you may have noticed, I stopped quoting you verbatim a few replies ago because anyone who carefully and thoroughly reads your comments would be able to quickly decide for themselves whether they think its a viable solution or not. And no they don't need to have tried it for themselves to know its not viable for their needs......rest assured, I don't need to step in a pile of dog poo to know what my shoe is going to smell like afterwards. Based on your comments alone, I feel comfortable saying I, along with the vast majority of users expecting S3D with both eyes, would reject any such solution and would not consider it a viable alternative to all objects/crosshairs/cursors rendered at the proper depths in S3D.
In any case, I'll offer a more constructive approach again. We can both post a few screenshots of problematic games that render crosshairs or cursors in 2D or screen depth and see which solution people prefer. Yours with convergence-shift or mine with low depth/high convergence and crosshair/cursor at screen depth. Then people can decide for themselves which they think is a more viable solution. Maybe you'll be surprised at how well it works despite your belief its a "completely incorrect 3D configuration"?
Here's a list of a few games with common complaints about crosshairs/cursors at screen depth that I'd be willing to demonstrate and compare, please feel free to add/suggest your own:
Darksiders (Aim mode and normal 3rd person)
Gears of War
Transformers War for Cybertron
Splinter Cell Conviction
Dragon Age
Titan Quest
Dawn of War II
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W
The bad thing is the compatibility list in the current 3dvision drivers has everything from the old 3d drivers in it as well, eventhough a lot of those games don't work anymore on 3dvision. Some are even opengl, when it's not supported by 3dvision at all.
[/quote]
I think you are talking about an Issue I have had lately..
Metal Gear Solid, Nightmare Creatures, Turok Dinosaur Hunter, House of the Dead 1 all older Win 95 & 98 games have Nvidia 3D Vision Ratings on the Nvidia Control Panel 3D Games Compatibility List.. Those games are not found on the Nvidia Featured Games list on the Nvidia 3D Games web page..
The issue I have is this:
I bought Metal Gear Solid specifically for 3D Vision.. It got an Excellent rating.. I can't get the game to run in 3D Vision at all.
What did Nvidia do just up and end compatibility with Metal Gear Solid but not remove Metal Gear off it's compatiblilty list on the Control Panels List?
My problem is I want to play Metal Gear in 3D vsion..
My issue or Nvidia 3D Vison Failure I want fixed is this::
Nvidia needs to post new lists under 3D vision compatiblity..
#1 What settings and drivers were used to get those Legacy Win 98 & Win 95 games to work in 3D vison at the time..
#2 Nvidia needs to notify games no longer supported after 3D Vision firmware updates..
#3 Nvidia should post a list of former drivers that work with what specific games and what settings were used to execute the best successful 3D vision..
Also show how to roll back to older drivers cause my Windows 7 keeps auto installing new drivers. I can't install legacy 159 Graphics drivers if I want for example even if I turn off automatic updates I can't go back to old Nvidia Drivers.
I just want to play those old games in 3D vision as they were advertised.. Dang it man. Like a thief in the night I feel I got robbed. Or they pulled the old bait and switch tactic.
Can I get either my old driver back and info on how to get my game to work right like it should by telling me exactly what settings Nvidia used to get that game to work, or can Nvidia just release a new driver that has 100 percent backwards compatibility with all their old drivers.
The bad thing is the compatibility list in the current 3dvision drivers has everything from the old 3d drivers in it as well, eventhough a lot of those games don't work anymore on 3dvision. Some are even opengl, when it's not supported by 3dvision at all.
I think you are talking about an Issue I have had lately..
Metal Gear Solid, Nightmare Creatures, Turok Dinosaur Hunter, House of the Dead 1 all older Win 95 & 98 games have Nvidia 3D Vision Ratings on the Nvidia Control Panel 3D Games Compatibility List.. Those games are not found on the Nvidia Featured Games list on the Nvidia 3D Games web page..
The issue I have is this:
I bought Metal Gear Solid specifically for 3D Vision.. It got an Excellent rating.. I can't get the game to run in 3D Vision at all.
What did Nvidia do just up and end compatibility with Metal Gear Solid but not remove Metal Gear off it's compatiblilty list on the Control Panels List?
My problem is I want to play Metal Gear in 3D vsion..
My issue or Nvidia 3D Vison Failure I want fixed is this::
Nvidia needs to post new lists under 3D vision compatiblity..
#1 What settings and drivers were used to get those Legacy Win 98 & Win 95 games to work in 3D vison at the time..
#2 Nvidia needs to notify games no longer supported after 3D Vision firmware updates..
#3 Nvidia should post a list of former drivers that work with what specific games and what settings were used to execute the best successful 3D vision..
Also show how to roll back to older drivers cause my Windows 7 keeps auto installing new drivers. I can't install legacy 159 Graphics drivers if I want for example even if I turn off automatic updates I can't go back to old Nvidia Drivers.
I just want to play those old games in 3D vision as they were advertised.. Dang it man. Like a thief in the night I feel I got robbed. Or they pulled the old bait and switch tactic.
Can I get either my old driver back and info on how to get my game to work right like it should by telling me exactly what settings Nvidia used to get that game to work, or can Nvidia just release a new driver that has 100 percent backwards compatibility with all their old drivers.
Battlefield 3 in particular you have to adjust the convergence via the in game console while in multiplayer. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want punkbuster to ban me for that ****. Seems you could "encourage" the developers not to lock their convergence from now on.
Battlefield 3 in particular you have to adjust the convergence via the in game console while in multiplayer. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want punkbuster to ban me for that ****. Seems you could "encourage" the developers not to lock their convergence from now on.
AMD Phenom II X3 720 @ 2.8GHZ
8GB RAM
Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb @ 2048x1536 @ 85hz
Edimensional glasses and Nvidia 3D Vision
http://helixmod.blogspot.com/
I would love the PR peeps from nVidia giving their game dev contacts a gentle nudge towards 3D Vision's 'advanced' settings saying, "See? No need for you to lock convergence, only advanced users will play with it anyway"
Know what I mean?
I would love the PR peeps from nVidia giving their game dev contacts a gentle nudge towards 3D Vision's 'advanced' settings saying, "See? No need for you to lock convergence, only advanced users will play with it anyway"
Know what I mean?
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 10 64bit, Ryzen 5 2600x, GTX 1070, 16GB, 3D Vision, CV1
Handy Driver DiscussionHelix Mod - community fixes Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes