Coming from 3D Vision, what are your impressions of the Oculus Rift CV1 / HTC Vive?
1 / 4
Now that a lot of people have their hands on VR, would you guys like to tell us your experience coming from 3D Vision?
Is it as spectacular for you as it is for people who have never tried 3D Vision before trying VR? Or has it lost the wow factor? Perhaps in your opinion it's not as good as 3D Vision?!
Which one do you prefer?
It would be great to share experiences. Mine doesn't arrive for quite some time yet (End of April order), but I am eager to temper my expectations.
Now that a lot of people have their hands on VR, would you guys like to tell us your experience coming from 3D Vision?
Is it as spectacular for you as it is for people who have never tried 3D Vision before trying VR? Or has it lost the wow factor? Perhaps in your opinion it's not as good as 3D Vision?!
Which one do you prefer?
It would be great to share experiences. Mine doesn't arrive for quite some time yet (End of April order), but I am eager to temper my expectations.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I tested the Samsung Gear VR and I have to say that there was indeed a WOW feeling the first time. But then I recognized that the games are actually a bit boring (except Smash) and not comparable to a good session of 3D vision. Also the resolution is of course not the best in the Samsung Gear VR.
Concerning the Vive and the Oculus, I expect them to really bring forward gaming when it comes to 3D and 360 immersion. But at the moment we lack however some good software. We need games like Half Life 3 or Skyrim 6 with VR support in the middle future, 2 - 3 years...
VR is here to stay.
I tested the Samsung Gear VR and I have to say that there was indeed a WOW feeling the first time. But then I recognized that the games are actually a bit boring (except Smash) and not comparable to a good session of 3D vision. Also the resolution is of course not the best in the Samsung Gear VR.
Concerning the Vive and the Oculus, I expect them to really bring forward gaming when it comes to 3D and 360 immersion. But at the moment we lack however some good software. We need games like Half Life 3 or Skyrim 6 with VR support in the middle future, 2 - 3 years...
My Kickstarter Rift just arrived while I was in the middle of Rise of the Tomb Raider using the community 3D fix. This is easily the best looking 3D game yet and I'm playing on a 65" 4K LG HDTV with max separation (depth to infinity), so I know 3D Vision at its best.
The Rift comes in an impressive package and is very well designed. It fits perfectly on my face after some adjustment and even my big nose is no longer a problem like it was with the DK2.
The integrated headphones are surprisingly good and are just in the right place, pressing soft on my ears. So ergonomically there is nothing I can say against the Rift.
The tracking is perfect and the tracking area is really wide (the camera has a big viewing angle), much better than with the DK2. Also typically the camera is not positioned exactly in front of you like with the DK2, but it is standing beside the display and the whole system is really easy to setup (also thanks to the install program which leads through the whole setup procedure).
The screen door effect is greatly reduced and the displays are bright and crisp.
But despite all this facts I think 3D vision on a big screen still has the lead over current gen headsets for the following reasons:
- The HMD screen resolution simply is still way to low. While nearby objects are ok it gets really worse with greater distance.
- The FOV is even a bit smaller than with the DK2. The black border around the view is very noticable.
- Of course even if the Rift is well designed, in can not compete at all with the wear comfort of my passive LG 3D glasses with the weight of just a few grams.
- In most games the depth for far distant objects seems to be way to low and sadly can't be adjusted (like separation with 3D vision). E.g. in Apollo 11 when the Eagle separates from the Orbiter the moon seems to be only about 50 meters away though it should be several kilometers. This is totally killing the experience for me. Most games/demos I tried suffer from this low depth effect.
- Interestingly the 3D in the Rift is not as impressive as with 3D Vision. I think it has to do with the fact that the brain expects a 3D view when using a HMD. It's a requirement and not a fancy bonus and therefor perceived as normal and not extraordinary. With 3D vision on the other hand even after 20 years of stereoscopic playing (since 3dfx Voodoo 2 Eyescream), I'm still blown away when I switch my display to 3D mode. I don't have this feeling when putting on my Rift.
- Current generation GPUs (even my GTX 980Ti) seem not yet to be powerful enough to permanantly ensure the 90 frames target rate in demanding games (e.g. Project Cars or ADRIFT), only demos with relative simple graphics run fine without stutter at all.
Of course most of the above problems will be fixed, some already with gen 2 HMDs and most with gen 3 for sure. But till then (and that may be several years in the future), my 3D vision system will still get the love it deserves. So keep those 3D fixes coming...
My Kickstarter Rift just arrived while I was in the middle of Rise of the Tomb Raider using the community 3D fix. This is easily the best looking 3D game yet and I'm playing on a 65" 4K LG HDTV with max separation (depth to infinity), so I know 3D Vision at its best.
The Rift comes in an impressive package and is very well designed. It fits perfectly on my face after some adjustment and even my big nose is no longer a problem like it was with the DK2.
The integrated headphones are surprisingly good and are just in the right place, pressing soft on my ears. So ergonomically there is nothing I can say against the Rift.
The tracking is perfect and the tracking area is really wide (the camera has a big viewing angle), much better than with the DK2. Also typically the camera is not positioned exactly in front of you like with the DK2, but it is standing beside the display and the whole system is really easy to setup (also thanks to the install program which leads through the whole setup procedure).
The screen door effect is greatly reduced and the displays are bright and crisp.
But despite all this facts I think 3D vision on a big screen still has the lead over current gen headsets for the following reasons:
- The HMD screen resolution simply is still way to low. While nearby objects are ok it gets really worse with greater distance.
- The FOV is even a bit smaller than with the DK2. The black border around the view is very noticable.
- Of course even if the Rift is well designed, in can not compete at all with the wear comfort of my passive LG 3D glasses with the weight of just a few grams.
- In most games the depth for far distant objects seems to be way to low and sadly can't be adjusted (like separation with 3D vision). E.g. in Apollo 11 when the Eagle separates from the Orbiter the moon seems to be only about 50 meters away though it should be several kilometers. This is totally killing the experience for me. Most games/demos I tried suffer from this low depth effect.
- Interestingly the 3D in the Rift is not as impressive as with 3D Vision. I think it has to do with the fact that the brain expects a 3D view when using a HMD. It's a requirement and not a fancy bonus and therefor perceived as normal and not extraordinary. With 3D vision on the other hand even after 20 years of stereoscopic playing (since 3dfx Voodoo 2 Eyescream), I'm still blown away when I switch my display to 3D mode. I don't have this feeling when putting on my Rift.
- Current generation GPUs (even my GTX 980Ti) seem not yet to be powerful enough to permanantly ensure the 90 frames target rate in demanding games (e.g. Project Cars or ADRIFT), only demos with relative simple graphics run fine without stutter at all.
Of course most of the above problems will be fixed, some already with gen 2 HMDs and most with gen 3 for sure. But till then (and that may be several years in the future), my 3D vision system will still get the love it deserves. So keep those 3D fixes coming...
That's some great info there Nobsi!
Does the IPD adjustment affect separation? It's strange, it s supposed to be designed so that far away objects are at infinite depth. I hope they are not going to nerf the 3D to appeal to casuals like they did with 3D movies (which are now dead).
Regarding the low resolution: I am currently on a 1280x800 projector and 4x DSR with blur set to 0% (effective resolution 2560x1600). This takes the perceived resolution into another orbit when enabled, albeit with a huge performance hit. It sharpens both textures as well as edges. I wonder if DSR on the rift would produce a similar result for you?
I was hoping that the rift with its head tracking would bring more presence compared to a projected 3D Vision setup. I guess I better reduce my expectations ;-)
Does the IPD adjustment affect separation? It's strange, it s supposed to be designed so that far away objects are at infinite depth. I hope they are not going to nerf the 3D to appeal to casuals like they did with 3D movies (which are now dead).
Regarding the low resolution: I am currently on a 1280x800 projector and 4x DSR with blur set to 0% (effective resolution 2560x1600). This takes the perceived resolution into another orbit when enabled, albeit with a huge performance hit. It sharpens both textures as well as edges. I wonder if DSR on the rift would produce a similar result for you?
I was hoping that the rift with its head tracking would bring more presence compared to a projected 3D Vision setup. I guess I better reduce my expectations ;-)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
TBH, I can't even fathom performance of DSR to increase res more then its already at for VR. 970 is the barest of requirements in quite a few games and lack of SLI functioning.
I think you will get more presence/immersion factor out of a VR game tbh.
[quote="Nobsi"]
- Current generation GPUs (even my GTX 980Ti) seem not yet to be powerful enough to permanantly ensure the 90 frames target rate in demanding games (e.g. Project Cars or ADRIFT), only demos with relative simple graphics run fine without stutter at all.
[/quote]
The funny thing is people don't seem to realize this. There is a 100+ reddit thread where people are talking about running a vive on one gpu and a oculus on another. Its insane that people think that even a processor can handle running two games at a combined 180fps in stereoscopic.
I actually just got my kickstarter key for The Gallery which looks fantastic and its minimum for low setting is a 970gtx.
TBH, I can't even fathom performance of DSR to increase res more then its already at for VR. 970 is the barest of requirements in quite a few games and lack of SLI functioning.
I think you will get more presence/immersion factor out of a VR game tbh.
Nobsi said:
- Current generation GPUs (even my GTX 980Ti) seem not yet to be powerful enough to permanantly ensure the 90 frames target rate in demanding games (e.g. Project Cars or ADRIFT), only demos with relative simple graphics run fine without stutter at all.
The funny thing is people don't seem to realize this. There is a 100+ reddit thread where people are talking about running a vive on one gpu and a oculus on another. Its insane that people think that even a processor can handle running two games at a combined 180fps in stereoscopic.
I actually just got my kickstarter key for The Gallery which looks fantastic and its minimum for low setting is a 970gtx.
Of course you are correct eqzitara, but I was hoping that the resolution issue would be solvable by DSR, if GPU horsepower was enough - Pascal should easily triple 970 performance for example. Already a 980 Ti is on par to 970 SLi.
When the horsepower is there, I am wondering if DSR would hugely improve image quality so we don't complain about the resolution any more? For example, we can currently run 2000 era games at ~1000fps with modern hardware.
Perhaps there are some older experiences which don't require a hefty GPU this could be tried with?
Also, I don't think people on those forums know what SLi means. They seem to be talking about using the graphics cards independently of one another. This might not be as crazy a it sounds - the CPU is barely at 25%-50% on most of today's games. Another game running concurrently will simply use the remaining cores without too much of an overhead.
Perhaps multi HMD VR will finally allow utilisation of a whole CPU and RAM, and independent graphics cards. I personally don't feel there is a huge technical hurdle there :)
Of course you are correct eqzitara, but I was hoping that the resolution issue would be solvable by DSR, if GPU horsepower was enough - Pascal should easily triple 970 performance for example. Already a 980 Ti is on par to 970 SLi.
When the horsepower is there, I am wondering if DSR would hugely improve image quality so we don't complain about the resolution any more? For example, we can currently run 2000 era games at ~1000fps with modern hardware.
Perhaps there are some older experiences which don't require a hefty GPU this could be tried with?
Also, I don't think people on those forums know what SLi means. They seem to be talking about using the graphics cards independently of one another. This might not be as crazy a it sounds - the CPU is barely at 25%-50% on most of today's games. Another game running concurrently will simply use the remaining cores without too much of an overhead.
Perhaps multi HMD VR will finally allow utilisation of a whole CPU and RAM, and independent graphics cards. I personally don't feel there is a huge technical hurdle there :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I've been playing with Kickstarter CV1 for a few days now, got it last Thursday, so I'm not quite ready to give a full review. I like to wait until the honeymoon phase is over before giving solid thought.
There are some obvious immediate take-aways though.
The sense of presence is undeniably great. There are multiple demos/set pieces where you are in specific rooms or with animals, and you have a much, much better sense of scale than you do with 3D Vision. Partly that is also because it's intended to be 1:1 mapping, not adjustable. We do toyification for example, which is not possible here unless the dev does it for you. Some of the pieces do take you away to where you feel like are somewhere else.
The resolution I think is not good enough. Much better than DK2, but I still think it's distracting and annoying. The biggest presence breaker is that things are fuzzy. It's like I can never quite see well enough. Distance objects in particular where you get into small numbers of pixels suffer. It's not completely awful like DK1, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely distracting to me.
The lens flare problem is real, and the biggest problem with Rift and presumably Vive. The fresnel they use is much lighter for the power it produces, but that's at the cost of lens flare, and I think that was a mistake. Anything bright has flare/bloom around it, and it's seriously distracting and annoying. As someone who wears glasses, it's like have finger smear on your lenses all the time. Everyone is different, and hell some people even think lens flare is somehow artistic and a compelling effect, so I'm sure they'll love this. For me this is the biggest deal breaker. I'll be playing VR specific stuff, but things like watching a movie in a virtual theater is dead as far as I'm concerned.
I tried the Vorpx play 3D games in a theater. It's OK, but the performance sucks. For the Talos Principle experiment I ran, the game was running at full 120 fps (60 per eye) at 2560x1200 DSR. Looked fantastic on the monitor with that DSR. On Rift in VorpX, it was running at 52 fps, much lower than the necessary 90, and it looked like crap. For this experiment, there is no question the 3D Vision is a better experience, where the presence adds a little, but being able to see clearly is much more compelling.
For the dual GPU experience, this is probably viable at present, because as near as I can tell nearly everything is also single CPU based. So, single core, single GPU, doesn't really stress the computer like we are accustomed to seeing. Pretty sure this is why Talos experiment is slow, don't know if that is Vorpx making it single threaded, or the Oculus runtime.
I don't think DSR is going to be viable as an answer to low res here, because I need 2560x1200 just to get it to look 1:1 pixel mapping in center of eye. Going higher than that without SLI is not really possible.
I'll post more later, but my initial reaction is that this doesn't have anything to do with 3D Vision, it is its own thing entirely.
For this generation of headsets, I don't think there is any chance it will be good enough to even play 3D on a virtual screen. And I say that as a very long time user of a 720p projector. 720p projector is still a higher quality and higher resolution experience than Rift. On projector I can see the pixels when in 2D, but not see them in 3D. On Rift I can clearly see the pixels, even in 3D.
I've been playing with Kickstarter CV1 for a few days now, got it last Thursday, so I'm not quite ready to give a full review. I like to wait until the honeymoon phase is over before giving solid thought.
There are some obvious immediate take-aways though.
The sense of presence is undeniably great. There are multiple demos/set pieces where you are in specific rooms or with animals, and you have a much, much better sense of scale than you do with 3D Vision. Partly that is also because it's intended to be 1:1 mapping, not adjustable. We do toyification for example, which is not possible here unless the dev does it for you. Some of the pieces do take you away to where you feel like are somewhere else.
The resolution I think is not good enough. Much better than DK2, but I still think it's distracting and annoying. The biggest presence breaker is that things are fuzzy. It's like I can never quite see well enough. Distance objects in particular where you get into small numbers of pixels suffer. It's not completely awful like DK1, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely distracting to me.
The lens flare problem is real, and the biggest problem with Rift and presumably Vive. The fresnel they use is much lighter for the power it produces, but that's at the cost of lens flare, and I think that was a mistake. Anything bright has flare/bloom around it, and it's seriously distracting and annoying. As someone who wears glasses, it's like have finger smear on your lenses all the time. Everyone is different, and hell some people even think lens flare is somehow artistic and a compelling effect, so I'm sure they'll love this. For me this is the biggest deal breaker. I'll be playing VR specific stuff, but things like watching a movie in a virtual theater is dead as far as I'm concerned.
I tried the Vorpx play 3D games in a theater. It's OK, but the performance sucks. For the Talos Principle experiment I ran, the game was running at full 120 fps (60 per eye) at 2560x1200 DSR. Looked fantastic on the monitor with that DSR. On Rift in VorpX, it was running at 52 fps, much lower than the necessary 90, and it looked like crap. For this experiment, there is no question the 3D Vision is a better experience, where the presence adds a little, but being able to see clearly is much more compelling.
For the dual GPU experience, this is probably viable at present, because as near as I can tell nearly everything is also single CPU based. So, single core, single GPU, doesn't really stress the computer like we are accustomed to seeing. Pretty sure this is why Talos experiment is slow, don't know if that is Vorpx making it single threaded, or the Oculus runtime.
I don't think DSR is going to be viable as an answer to low res here, because I need 2560x1200 just to get it to look 1:1 pixel mapping in center of eye. Going higher than that without SLI is not really possible.
I'll post more later, but my initial reaction is that this doesn't have anything to do with 3D Vision, it is its own thing entirely.
For this generation of headsets, I don't think there is any chance it will be good enough to even play 3D on a virtual screen. And I say that as a very long time user of a 720p projector. 720p projector is still a higher quality and higher resolution experience than Rift. On projector I can see the pixels when in 2D, but not see them in 3D. On Rift I can clearly see the pixels, even in 3D.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Very interesting topic. Im patiently waiting when VR headsets deliver both full FoV and great resolution to full dive into VR. But its cool to watch how tech evolves.
Very interesting topic. Im patiently waiting when VR headsets deliver both full FoV and great resolution to full dive into VR. But its cool to watch how tech evolves.
I know I don't really count because I am still with my DK2 but for games like Elite I think VR is awesome. Elite does everything right IMO and has everything I want for a seated VR experience. This is admittedly coming from someone addicted to ED. I haven't played any game in 3D since.
Virtual desktop is OK but I am always aware of the head-unit, so until head unit's presence is negated, I think it's a gimmick. Great potential though!
Also Oculus Runtime 1.3 is really good having solved the judder when FPS falls below refresh.
I know I don't really count because I am still with my DK2 but for games like Elite I think VR is awesome. Elite does everything right IMO and has everything I want for a seated VR experience. This is admittedly coming from someone addicted to ED. I haven't played any game in 3D since.
Virtual desktop is OK but I am always aware of the head-unit, so until head unit's presence is negated, I think it's a gimmick. Great potential though!
Also Oculus Runtime 1.3 is really good having solved the judder when FPS falls below refresh.
@bo3b
I am extremely curious of the performance of Vorpx. If you ever play multiple games please post the comparisons. I thought I was being harsh when I said people can maybe play a game as of a 1 1/2 to 2 years ago at full VR specs with renderer pending a video card ahead of that release.
Now I am thinking I way overshot that estimation especially considering vorpx is not even close to 1:1. 2560x1200 @120hz+ constant[whatever it is] | 2160x1200@104 is pretty damn steep.
I am not knocking Talos Principle cause its a great game but its pretty on par with Serious Sam 3 as far as just about everything. Which is pretty old.
@bo3b
I am extremely curious of the performance of Vorpx. If you ever play multiple games please post the comparisons. I thought I was being harsh when I said people can maybe play a game as of a 1 1/2 to 2 years ago at full VR specs with renderer pending a video card ahead of that release.
Now I am thinking I way overshot that estimation especially considering vorpx is not even close to 1:1. 2560x1200 @120hz+ constant[whatever it is] | 2160x1200@104 is pretty damn steep.
I am not knocking Talos Principle cause its a great game but its pretty on par with Serious Sam 3 as far as just about everything. Which is pretty old.
Great info bo3b!
As luck would have it, last night CV1 got pushed back 3 months. I have thus obtained a DK2 for the time being at a great price. I am completely new to this, but will try and replicate your results.
As luck would have it, my projector has gone bye-bye. I'm awaiting some parts from china to make it functional again... progress may be slow.
I am surprised and disheartened at the lack of VorpX performance. Looks like the 3D core limit strikes again, in a different way.
As luck would have it, last night CV1 got pushed back 3 months. I have thus obtained a DK2 for the time being at a great price. I am completely new to this, but will try and replicate your results.
As luck would have it, my projector has gone bye-bye. I'm awaiting some parts from china to make it functional again... progress may be slow.
I am surprised and disheartened at the lack of VorpX performance. Looks like the 3D core limit strikes again, in a different way.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]Great info bo3b!
As luck would have it, last night CV1 got pushed back 3 months. I have thus obtained a DK2 for the time being at a great price. I am completely new to this, but will try and replicate your results.
As luck would have it, my projector has gone bye-bye. I'm awaiting some parts from china to make it functional again... progress may be slow.
I am surprised and disheartened at the lack of VorpX performance. Looks like the 3D core limit strikes again, in a different way.
[/quote]
I don't think that problem is related to 3D Vision driver but to VorpX in some way... I don't think the App is developed with Multi-threading in mind... or the mod-itself is not multi-threaded...
As luck would have it, last night CV1 got pushed back 3 months. I have thus obtained a DK2 for the time being at a great price. I am completely new to this, but will try and replicate your results.
As luck would have it, my projector has gone bye-bye. I'm awaiting some parts from china to make it functional again... progress may be slow.
I am surprised and disheartened at the lack of VorpX performance. Looks like the 3D core limit strikes again, in a different way.
I don't think that problem is related to 3D Vision driver but to VorpX in some way... I don't think the App is developed with Multi-threading in mind... or the mod-itself is not multi-threaded...
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="bo3b"]
I'll post more later, but my initial reaction is that this doesn't have anything to do with 3D Vision, it is its own thing entirely.
[/quote]
That's it. There's no point to try comparing 3D vision and VR. There's no competition between stereo 3D and VR. You can enjoy a game in 3D vision AND enjoy another game made for VR, why always confronting things with our dualistic mind? Who do I love the most, my brother or my sister?...
When I read "3D is better with 3D vision", I don't understand the point of this statement. VR doesn't search for toyification, it searches for "presence", an IRL sense of stereoscopy...which is far from "artificial" 3D like toyification.
For Sim games (PCARS, Assetto, FSX, Elite,...) VR is already a game changing experience, and by far better than any 3d vision/3d vision surround installation in term of immersion. And that's just the beginning, the year One of VR.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFKjWGxZqk[/url]
I'll post more later, but my initial reaction is that this doesn't have anything to do with 3D Vision, it is its own thing entirely.
That's it. There's no point to try comparing 3D vision and VR. There's no competition between stereo 3D and VR. You can enjoy a game in 3D vision AND enjoy another game made for VR, why always confronting things with our dualistic mind? Who do I love the most, my brother or my sister?...
When I read "3D is better with 3D vision", I don't understand the point of this statement. VR doesn't search for toyification, it searches for "presence", an IRL sense of stereoscopy...which is far from "artificial" 3D like toyification.
For Sim games (PCARS, Assetto, FSX, Elite,...) VR is already a game changing experience, and by far better than any 3d vision/3d vision surround installation in term of immersion. And that's just the beginning, the year One of VR.
[quote="Nobsi"]My Kickstarter Rift just arrived while I was in the middle of Rise of the Tomb Raider using the community 3D fix. This is easily the best looking 3D game yet and I'm playing on a 65" 4K LG HDTV with max separation (depth to infinity), so I know 3D Vision at its best.
The Rift comes in an impressive package and is very well designed. It fits perfectly on my face after some adjustment and even my big nose is no longer a problem like it was with the DK2.
The integrated headphones are surprisingly good and are just in the right place, pressing soft on my ears. So ergonomically there is nothing I can say against the Rift.
The tracking is perfect and the tracking area is really wide (the camera has a big viewing angle), much better than with the DK2. Also typically the camera is not positioned exactly in front of you like with the DK2, but it is standing beside the display and the whole system is really easy to setup (also thanks to the install program which leads through the whole setup procedure).
The screen door effect is greatly reduced and the displays are bright and crisp.
But despite all this facts I think 3D vision on a big screen still has the lead over current gen headsets for the following reasons:
- The HMD screen resolution simply is still way to low. While nearby objects are ok it gets really worse with greater distance.
- The FOV is even a bit smaller than with the DK2. The black border around the view is very noticable.
- Of course even if the Rift is well designed, in can not compete at all with the wear comfort of my passive LG 3D glasses with the weight of just a few grams.
- In most games the depth for far distant objects seems to be way to low and sadly can't be adjusted (like separation with 3D vision). E.g. in Apollo 11 when the Eagle separates from the Orbiter the moon seems to be only about 50 meters away though it should be several kilometers. This is totally killing the experience for me. Most games/demos I tried suffer from this low depth effect.
- Interestingly the 3D in the Rift is not as impressive as with 3D Vision. I think it has to do with the fact that the brain expects a 3D view when using a HMD. It's a requirement and not a fancy bonus and therefor perceived as normal and not extraordinary. With 3D vision on the other hand even after 20 years of stereoscopic playing (since 3dfx Voodoo 2 Eyescream), I'm still blown away when I switch my display to 3D mode. I don't have this feeling when putting on my Rift.
- Current generation GPUs (even my GTX 980Ti) seem not yet to be powerful enough to permanantly ensure the 90 frames target rate in demanding games (e.g. Project Cars or ADRIFT), only demos with relative simple graphics run fine without stutter at all.
Of course most of the above problems will be fixed, some already with gen 2 HMDs and most with gen 3 for sure. But till then (and that may be several years in the future), my 3D vision system will still get the love it deserves. So keep those 3D fixes coming...
[/quote]
So propably i made the right call for now on just getting more gpu power.
Riding 135" passive dual projector 3D ( 2 times 1080p ) on 3D vision.
Nobsi said:My Kickstarter Rift just arrived while I was in the middle of Rise of the Tomb Raider using the community 3D fix. This is easily the best looking 3D game yet and I'm playing on a 65" 4K LG HDTV with max separation (depth to infinity), so I know 3D Vision at its best.
The Rift comes in an impressive package and is very well designed. It fits perfectly on my face after some adjustment and even my big nose is no longer a problem like it was with the DK2.
The integrated headphones are surprisingly good and are just in the right place, pressing soft on my ears. So ergonomically there is nothing I can say against the Rift.
The tracking is perfect and the tracking area is really wide (the camera has a big viewing angle), much better than with the DK2. Also typically the camera is not positioned exactly in front of you like with the DK2, but it is standing beside the display and the whole system is really easy to setup (also thanks to the install program which leads through the whole setup procedure).
The screen door effect is greatly reduced and the displays are bright and crisp.
But despite all this facts I think 3D vision on a big screen still has the lead over current gen headsets for the following reasons:
- The HMD screen resolution simply is still way to low. While nearby objects are ok it gets really worse with greater distance.
- The FOV is even a bit smaller than with the DK2. The black border around the view is very noticable.
- Of course even if the Rift is well designed, in can not compete at all with the wear comfort of my passive LG 3D glasses with the weight of just a few grams.
- In most games the depth for far distant objects seems to be way to low and sadly can't be adjusted (like separation with 3D vision). E.g. in Apollo 11 when the Eagle separates from the Orbiter the moon seems to be only about 50 meters away though it should be several kilometers. This is totally killing the experience for me. Most games/demos I tried suffer from this low depth effect.
- Interestingly the 3D in the Rift is not as impressive as with 3D Vision. I think it has to do with the fact that the brain expects a 3D view when using a HMD. It's a requirement and not a fancy bonus and therefor perceived as normal and not extraordinary. With 3D vision on the other hand even after 20 years of stereoscopic playing (since 3dfx Voodoo 2 Eyescream), I'm still blown away when I switch my display to 3D mode. I don't have this feeling when putting on my Rift.
- Current generation GPUs (even my GTX 980Ti) seem not yet to be powerful enough to permanantly ensure the 90 frames target rate in demanding games (e.g. Project Cars or ADRIFT), only demos with relative simple graphics run fine without stutter at all.
Of course most of the above problems will be fixed, some already with gen 2 HMDs and most with gen 3 for sure. But till then (and that may be several years in the future), my 3D vision system will still get the love it deserves. So keep those 3D fixes coming...
So propably i made the right call for now on just getting more gpu power.
Riding 135" passive dual projector 3D ( 2 times 1080p ) on 3D vision.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@4.7
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
[quote="Laast"]That's it. There's no point to try comparing 3D vision and VR. There's no competition between stereo 3D and VR. You can enjoy a game in 3D vision AND enjoy another game made for VR, why always confronting things with our dualistic mind? Who do I love the most, my brother or my sister?...
For Sim games (PCARS, Assetto, FSX, Elite,...) VR is already a game changing experience, and by far better than any 3d vision/3d vision surround installation in term of immersion. And that's just the beginning, the year One of VR. [/quote]
Makes sense to me!
The evaluation of VR needs to be in it's own category and I can see how easily it is for gamers to fall in the trap of comparing with the way we currently play games, after all this what we've known for a hell of a long time. Since the Oculus and Vive are currently not available until later this summer, I'll probably pick one up in the fall and I'm sure there will be some new feedback and perhaps some other things coming down the pipe. Knowing what you are getting into makes it a lot easier to make a purchase. Hopefully where I live, I'll get a chance to demo one of the dam things.....lol....I have a strong interest in VR and the only thing I got right now is feedback from this forum which incidentally I happen to trust quite a bit. Thanks for all the objective feedback!
Laast said:That's it. There's no point to try comparing 3D vision and VR. There's no competition between stereo 3D and VR. You can enjoy a game in 3D vision AND enjoy another game made for VR, why always confronting things with our dualistic mind? Who do I love the most, my brother or my sister?...
For Sim games (PCARS, Assetto, FSX, Elite,...) VR is already a game changing experience, and by far better than any 3d vision/3d vision surround installation in term of immersion. And that's just the beginning, the year One of VR.
Makes sense to me!
The evaluation of VR needs to be in it's own category and I can see how easily it is for gamers to fall in the trap of comparing with the way we currently play games, after all this what we've known for a hell of a long time. Since the Oculus and Vive are currently not available until later this summer, I'll probably pick one up in the fall and I'm sure there will be some new feedback and perhaps some other things coming down the pipe. Knowing what you are getting into makes it a lot easier to make a purchase. Hopefully where I live, I'll get a chance to demo one of the dam things.....lol....I have a strong interest in VR and the only thing I got right now is feedback from this forum which incidentally I happen to trust quite a bit. Thanks for all the objective feedback!
Is it as spectacular for you as it is for people who have never tried 3D Vision before trying VR? Or has it lost the wow factor? Perhaps in your opinion it's not as good as 3D Vision?!
Which one do you prefer?
It would be great to share experiences. Mine doesn't arrive for quite some time yet (End of April order), but I am eager to temper my expectations.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Concerning the Vive and the Oculus, I expect them to really bring forward gaming when it comes to 3D and 360 immersion. But at the moment we lack however some good software. We need games like Half Life 3 or Skyrim 6 with VR support in the middle future, 2 - 3 years...
VR is here to stay.
Intel Core i7-3820, 4 X 3,60 GHz overclocked to 4,50 GHz ; EVGA Titan X 12VRAM ; 16 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR-1600 (4x 4 GB) ; Asus VG278H 27-inch incl. 3D vision 2 glasses, integrated transmitter ; Xbox One Elite wireless controller ; Windows 10HTC VIVE 2,5 m2 roomscale3D VISION GAMERS - VISIT ME ON STEAM and feel free to add me: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198064106555 YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1UE5TPoF0HX0HVpF_E4uPQ STEAM CURATOR: https://store.steampowered.com/curator/33611530-Streaming-Deluxe/
The Rift comes in an impressive package and is very well designed. It fits perfectly on my face after some adjustment and even my big nose is no longer a problem like it was with the DK2.
The integrated headphones are surprisingly good and are just in the right place, pressing soft on my ears. So ergonomically there is nothing I can say against the Rift.
The tracking is perfect and the tracking area is really wide (the camera has a big viewing angle), much better than with the DK2. Also typically the camera is not positioned exactly in front of you like with the DK2, but it is standing beside the display and the whole system is really easy to setup (also thanks to the install program which leads through the whole setup procedure).
The screen door effect is greatly reduced and the displays are bright and crisp.
But despite all this facts I think 3D vision on a big screen still has the lead over current gen headsets for the following reasons:
- The HMD screen resolution simply is still way to low. While nearby objects are ok it gets really worse with greater distance.
- The FOV is even a bit smaller than with the DK2. The black border around the view is very noticable.
- Of course even if the Rift is well designed, in can not compete at all with the wear comfort of my passive LG 3D glasses with the weight of just a few grams.
- In most games the depth for far distant objects seems to be way to low and sadly can't be adjusted (like separation with 3D vision). E.g. in Apollo 11 when the Eagle separates from the Orbiter the moon seems to be only about 50 meters away though it should be several kilometers. This is totally killing the experience for me. Most games/demos I tried suffer from this low depth effect.
- Interestingly the 3D in the Rift is not as impressive as with 3D Vision. I think it has to do with the fact that the brain expects a 3D view when using a HMD. It's a requirement and not a fancy bonus and therefor perceived as normal and not extraordinary. With 3D vision on the other hand even after 20 years of stereoscopic playing (since 3dfx Voodoo 2 Eyescream), I'm still blown away when I switch my display to 3D mode. I don't have this feeling when putting on my Rift.
- Current generation GPUs (even my GTX 980Ti) seem not yet to be powerful enough to permanantly ensure the 90 frames target rate in demanding games (e.g. Project Cars or ADRIFT), only demos with relative simple graphics run fine without stutter at all.
Of course most of the above problems will be fixed, some already with gen 2 HMDs and most with gen 3 for sure. But till then (and that may be several years in the future), my 3D vision system will still get the love it deserves. So keep those 3D fixes coming...
Does the IPD adjustment affect separation? It's strange, it s supposed to be designed so that far away objects are at infinite depth. I hope they are not going to nerf the 3D to appeal to casuals like they did with 3D movies (which are now dead).
Regarding the low resolution: I am currently on a 1280x800 projector and 4x DSR with blur set to 0% (effective resolution 2560x1600). This takes the perceived resolution into another orbit when enabled, albeit with a huge performance hit. It sharpens both textures as well as edges. I wonder if DSR on the rift would produce a similar result for you?
I was hoping that the rift with its head tracking would bring more presence compared to a projected 3D Vision setup. I guess I better reduce my expectations ;-)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I think you will get more presence/immersion factor out of a VR game tbh.
The funny thing is people don't seem to realize this. There is a 100+ reddit thread where people are talking about running a vive on one gpu and a oculus on another. Its insane that people think that even a processor can handle running two games at a combined 180fps in stereoscopic.
I actually just got my kickstarter key for The Gallery which looks fantastic and its minimum for low setting is a 970gtx.
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918
When the horsepower is there, I am wondering if DSR would hugely improve image quality so we don't complain about the resolution any more? For example, we can currently run 2000 era games at ~1000fps with modern hardware.
Perhaps there are some older experiences which don't require a hefty GPU this could be tried with?
Also, I don't think people on those forums know what SLi means. They seem to be talking about using the graphics cards independently of one another. This might not be as crazy a it sounds - the CPU is barely at 25%-50% on most of today's games. Another game running concurrently will simply use the remaining cores without too much of an overhead.
Perhaps multi HMD VR will finally allow utilisation of a whole CPU and RAM, and independent graphics cards. I personally don't feel there is a huge technical hurdle there :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
There are some obvious immediate take-aways though.
The sense of presence is undeniably great. There are multiple demos/set pieces where you are in specific rooms or with animals, and you have a much, much better sense of scale than you do with 3D Vision. Partly that is also because it's intended to be 1:1 mapping, not adjustable. We do toyification for example, which is not possible here unless the dev does it for you. Some of the pieces do take you away to where you feel like are somewhere else.
The resolution I think is not good enough. Much better than DK2, but I still think it's distracting and annoying. The biggest presence breaker is that things are fuzzy. It's like I can never quite see well enough. Distance objects in particular where you get into small numbers of pixels suffer. It's not completely awful like DK1, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely distracting to me.
The lens flare problem is real, and the biggest problem with Rift and presumably Vive. The fresnel they use is much lighter for the power it produces, but that's at the cost of lens flare, and I think that was a mistake. Anything bright has flare/bloom around it, and it's seriously distracting and annoying. As someone who wears glasses, it's like have finger smear on your lenses all the time. Everyone is different, and hell some people even think lens flare is somehow artistic and a compelling effect, so I'm sure they'll love this. For me this is the biggest deal breaker. I'll be playing VR specific stuff, but things like watching a movie in a virtual theater is dead as far as I'm concerned.
I tried the Vorpx play 3D games in a theater. It's OK, but the performance sucks. For the Talos Principle experiment I ran, the game was running at full 120 fps (60 per eye) at 2560x1200 DSR. Looked fantastic on the monitor with that DSR. On Rift in VorpX, it was running at 52 fps, much lower than the necessary 90, and it looked like crap. For this experiment, there is no question the 3D Vision is a better experience, where the presence adds a little, but being able to see clearly is much more compelling.
For the dual GPU experience, this is probably viable at present, because as near as I can tell nearly everything is also single CPU based. So, single core, single GPU, doesn't really stress the computer like we are accustomed to seeing. Pretty sure this is why Talos experiment is slow, don't know if that is Vorpx making it single threaded, or the Oculus runtime.
I don't think DSR is going to be viable as an answer to low res here, because I need 2560x1200 just to get it to look 1:1 pixel mapping in center of eye. Going higher than that without SLI is not really possible.
I'll post more later, but my initial reaction is that this doesn't have anything to do with 3D Vision, it is its own thing entirely.
For this generation of headsets, I don't think there is any chance it will be good enough to even play 3D on a virtual screen. And I say that as a very long time user of a 720p projector. 720p projector is still a higher quality and higher resolution experience than Rift. On projector I can see the pixels when in 2D, but not see them in 3D. On Rift I can clearly see the pixels, even in 3D.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
i5 2500K/16gb/GTX 970/Asus VG278H + Sony HMZ-T1
Virtual desktop is OK but I am always aware of the head-unit, so until head unit's presence is negated, I think it's a gimmick. Great potential though!
Also Oculus Runtime 1.3 is really good having solved the judder when FPS falls below refresh.
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
I am extremely curious of the performance of Vorpx. If you ever play multiple games please post the comparisons. I thought I was being harsh when I said people can maybe play a game as of a 1 1/2 to 2 years ago at full VR specs with renderer pending a video card ahead of that release.
Now I am thinking I way overshot that estimation especially considering vorpx is not even close to 1:1. 2560x1200 @120hz+ constant[whatever it is] | 2160x1200@104 is pretty damn steep.
I am not knocking Talos Principle cause its a great game but its pretty on par with Serious Sam 3 as far as just about everything. Which is pretty old.
Co-founder/Web host of helixmod.blog.com
Donations for web hosting @ paypal -eqzitara@yahoo.com
or
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=791918
As luck would have it, last night CV1 got pushed back 3 months. I have thus obtained a DK2 for the time being at a great price. I am completely new to this, but will try and replicate your results.
As luck would have it, my projector has gone bye-bye. I'm awaiting some parts from china to make it functional again... progress may be slow.
I am surprised and disheartened at the lack of VorpX performance. Looks like the 3D core limit strikes again, in a different way.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
I don't think that problem is related to 3D Vision driver but to VorpX in some way... I don't think the App is developed with Multi-threading in mind... or the mod-itself is not multi-threaded...
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
That's it. There's no point to try comparing 3D vision and VR. There's no competition between stereo 3D and VR. You can enjoy a game in 3D vision AND enjoy another game made for VR, why always confronting things with our dualistic mind? Who do I love the most, my brother or my sister?...
When I read "3D is better with 3D vision", I don't understand the point of this statement. VR doesn't search for toyification, it searches for "presence", an IRL sense of stereoscopy...which is far from "artificial" 3D like toyification.
For Sim games (PCARS, Assetto, FSX, Elite,...) VR is already a game changing experience, and by far better than any 3d vision/3d vision surround installation in term of immersion. And that's just the beginning, the year One of VR.
" rel="nofollow" target = "_blank">
So propably i made the right call for now on just getting more gpu power.
Riding 135" passive dual projector 3D ( 2 times 1080p ) on 3D vision.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@4.7
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Makes sense to me!
The evaluation of VR needs to be in it's own category and I can see how easily it is for gamers to fall in the trap of comparing with the way we currently play games, after all this what we've known for a hell of a long time. Since the Oculus and Vive are currently not available until later this summer, I'll probably pick one up in the fall and I'm sure there will be some new feedback and perhaps some other things coming down the pipe. Knowing what you are getting into makes it a lot easier to make a purchase. Hopefully where I live, I'll get a chance to demo one of the dam things.....lol....I have a strong interest in VR and the only thing I got right now is feedback from this forum which incidentally I happen to trust quite a bit. Thanks for all the objective feedback!