Convergence / ghosting Need more convergence options from nvidia
  1 / 2    
Hi.


First post, obviously. So be gentle! I'll give as much detail as I can because it's expensive equipment and I wan't it to be flawless, meaning if I'm being stupid please do tell. Don't know if I stumbled upon something new, but I've been experimenting with depth and convergence options. And I can't really find any calibration that seems to click for me except for reducing depth to as low as it gets. That's not how it should be solved and Nvidia probably agrees, and this problem occurs in both Nvidia certified games, not recommended, and unlisted games. So I'm not sure it's user error.

Problems I have met:
- Convergence / ghosting in _all_ games. (unsolved a.k.a contrast white on black inconvergence)
- Flicker (I guess there are two types. Game bug like in arma2 sniper scopes and IR-emitter line of sight stuff. The former is being worked on by Bohemia)
- Mafia2 isn't compatible with 3d and displays almost all textures as black. (Software bug. The rendering engine goes crazy and can't draw textures correctly. Apparent if glasses are off)
- Edge anomalies (game bug perhaps, arma2 is a nice example. textures and geometry doesn't render correctly outside of standard "fov" and nvidia somehow modifies ingame fov with frustum cycling (hidden control panel option)
- Latest driver package on the website for 3d vision win7 64bit is corrupted (but it installs anyway)

Preset:
I have a single LG W2326-something screen (nvidia recommended), connected to Nvidia 470 cards. On that I have an overclocked i7-930. I haven't detected any anomalies playing without 3d so visual artifacts only occur during stereoscopic mode. The problems occur both in SLI and without SLI. The screen runs in 1920*1080px @120Hz at the moment. Worthy of noting is that I use corrective glasses, and I have astigmatism. I have two pairs, none of them fit comfortably beneath the nvidia glasses. Astigmatism only affects sharpness of lines at different angles, and the foureyes is so that I can see far away. I.e my eye defect shouldn't affect perception much other than put the nvidia glasses at an awkward angle sometimes. It does not affect depth perception at all.

I've checked numerous amounts of posts, tips and so on. None have good tips, but I tried them anyway. Everything from filtering gamma to installing drivers and color profiles for my monitor and bypassing the USB hub for the IR-emitter. Also switching redraw rate (100, 110 and 120hz). Turning off ambient emitters that could interfere with the Nvidia gear. Repositioning the emitter.. etc. None of them are acceptable or actually supplies a solution.

My main issue is the topic related one. The more depth you add the more obvious the ghosting or inconvergence. And I truly hope this is not an intended effect, because then I have bought as we say here, a pig in a sack. That would be a first from nvidia in my experience.


Here is what I want you guys to confirm...

I think it happens because convergence doesn't work properly with different depth planes. The drivers lack user controlled "differentiated Z-axis convergence". This cannot be solved through buying new monitors since the glasses and monitor does not communicate. The current convergence setting gives you some unified convergence that happens on all planes at once which unfortunately liberates you of any chance of solving or calibrating the issue away. What needs to be done is atleast GUI, medium and far plane convergence depths. I'm pretty sure you can solve this through driver intervention and if it has to be set in different depth steps for keyboard shortcuts or whatever, then that's ok too as long as it's stepped. I prefer stated ones as they are the most important for my type of games.

Examples of this which I imagine myself observing, for a first person shooter. I used arma2 as an example.

- If you calibrate convergence to GUI depth, then everything at far depth resembles the visual effect of crossing your eyes. The gun gets "ghosted".
- If you calibrate convergence to medium / iron crosshair depth, then GUI gets slightly crosseyed even with the Nvidia laser crosshair. And a you get a little bit of ghosting in the deep plane.
- If you calibrate convergence to the far plane, then the gun splits in two and the GUI becomes unreadable.



So if I could get some feedback from users with the same problem I would know if I'm on to something. It would also give Nvidia better chance of fixing it. And if Nvidia released beta drivers with these options enabled, we would on a wide array of users be able to respond if it's successful.
Hi.





First post, obviously. So be gentle! I'll give as much detail as I can because it's expensive equipment and I wan't it to be flawless, meaning if I'm being stupid please do tell. Don't know if I stumbled upon something new, but I've been experimenting with depth and convergence options. And I can't really find any calibration that seems to click for me except for reducing depth to as low as it gets. That's not how it should be solved and Nvidia probably agrees, and this problem occurs in both Nvidia certified games, not recommended, and unlisted games. So I'm not sure it's user error.



Problems I have met:

- Convergence / ghosting in _all_ games. (unsolved a.k.a contrast white on black inconvergence)

- Flicker (I guess there are two types. Game bug like in arma2 sniper scopes and IR-emitter line of sight stuff. The former is being worked on by Bohemia)

- Mafia2 isn't compatible with 3d and displays almost all textures as black. (Software bug. The rendering engine goes crazy and can't draw textures correctly. Apparent if glasses are off)

- Edge anomalies (game bug perhaps, arma2 is a nice example. textures and geometry doesn't render correctly outside of standard "fov" and nvidia somehow modifies ingame fov with frustum cycling (hidden control panel option)

- Latest driver package on the website for 3d vision win7 64bit is corrupted (but it installs anyway)



Preset:

I have a single LG W2326-something screen (nvidia recommended), connected to Nvidia 470 cards. On that I have an overclocked i7-930. I haven't detected any anomalies playing without 3d so visual artifacts only occur during stereoscopic mode. The problems occur both in SLI and without SLI. The screen runs in 1920*1080px @120Hz at the moment. Worthy of noting is that I use corrective glasses, and I have astigmatism. I have two pairs, none of them fit comfortably beneath the nvidia glasses. Astigmatism only affects sharpness of lines at different angles, and the foureyes is so that I can see far away. I.e my eye defect shouldn't affect perception much other than put the nvidia glasses at an awkward angle sometimes. It does not affect depth perception at all.



I've checked numerous amounts of posts, tips and so on. None have good tips, but I tried them anyway. Everything from filtering gamma to installing drivers and color profiles for my monitor and bypassing the USB hub for the IR-emitter. Also switching redraw rate (100, 110 and 120hz). Turning off ambient emitters that could interfere with the Nvidia gear. Repositioning the emitter.. etc. None of them are acceptable or actually supplies a solution.



My main issue is the topic related one. The more depth you add the more obvious the ghosting or inconvergence. And I truly hope this is not an intended effect, because then I have bought as we say here, a pig in a sack. That would be a first from nvidia in my experience.





Here is what I want you guys to confirm...



I think it happens because convergence doesn't work properly with different depth planes. The drivers lack user controlled "differentiated Z-axis convergence". This cannot be solved through buying new monitors since the glasses and monitor does not communicate. The current convergence setting gives you some unified convergence that happens on all planes at once which unfortunately liberates you of any chance of solving or calibrating the issue away. What needs to be done is atleast GUI, medium and far plane convergence depths. I'm pretty sure you can solve this through driver intervention and if it has to be set in different depth steps for keyboard shortcuts or whatever, then that's ok too as long as it's stepped. I prefer stated ones as they are the most important for my type of games.



Examples of this which I imagine myself observing, for a first person shooter. I used arma2 as an example.



- If you calibrate convergence to GUI depth, then everything at far depth resembles the visual effect of crossing your eyes. The gun gets "ghosted".

- If you calibrate convergence to medium / iron crosshair depth, then GUI gets slightly crosseyed even with the Nvidia laser crosshair. And a you get a little bit of ghosting in the deep plane.

- If you calibrate convergence to the far plane, then the gun splits in two and the GUI becomes unreadable.







So if I could get some feedback from users with the same problem I would know if I'm on to something. It would also give Nvidia better chance of fixing it. And if Nvidia released beta drivers with these options enabled, we would on a wide array of users be able to respond if it's successful.

#1
Posted 09/22/2010 09:20 PM   
Hi.


First post, obviously. So be gentle! I'll give as much detail as I can because it's expensive equipment and I wan't it to be flawless, meaning if I'm being stupid please do tell. Don't know if I stumbled upon something new, but I've been experimenting with depth and convergence options. And I can't really find any calibration that seems to click for me except for reducing depth to as low as it gets. That's not how it should be solved and Nvidia probably agrees, and this problem occurs in both Nvidia certified games, not recommended, and unlisted games. So I'm not sure it's user error.

Problems I have met:
- Convergence / ghosting in _all_ games. (unsolved a.k.a contrast white on black inconvergence)
- Flicker (I guess there are two types. Game bug like in arma2 sniper scopes and IR-emitter line of sight stuff. The former is being worked on by Bohemia)
- Mafia2 isn't compatible with 3d and displays almost all textures as black. (Software bug. The rendering engine goes crazy and can't draw textures correctly. Apparent if glasses are off)
- Edge anomalies (game bug perhaps, arma2 is a nice example. textures and geometry doesn't render correctly outside of standard "fov" and nvidia somehow modifies ingame fov with frustum cycling (hidden control panel option)
- Latest driver package on the website for 3d vision win7 64bit is corrupted (but it installs anyway)

Preset:
I have a single LG W2326-something screen (nvidia recommended), connected to Nvidia 470 cards. On that I have an overclocked i7-930. I haven't detected any anomalies playing without 3d so visual artifacts only occur during stereoscopic mode. The problems occur both in SLI and without SLI. The screen runs in 1920*1080px @120Hz at the moment. Worthy of noting is that I use corrective glasses, and I have astigmatism. I have two pairs, none of them fit comfortably beneath the nvidia glasses. Astigmatism only affects sharpness of lines at different angles, and the foureyes is so that I can see far away. I.e my eye defect shouldn't affect perception much other than put the nvidia glasses at an awkward angle sometimes. It does not affect depth perception at all.

I've checked numerous amounts of posts, tips and so on. None have good tips, but I tried them anyway. Everything from filtering gamma to installing drivers and color profiles for my monitor and bypassing the USB hub for the IR-emitter. Also switching redraw rate (100, 110 and 120hz). Turning off ambient emitters that could interfere with the Nvidia gear. Repositioning the emitter.. etc. None of them are acceptable or actually supplies a solution.

My main issue is the topic related one. The more depth you add the more obvious the ghosting or inconvergence. And I truly hope this is not an intended effect, because then I have bought as we say here, a pig in a sack. That would be a first from nvidia in my experience.


Here is what I want you guys to confirm...

I think it happens because convergence doesn't work properly with different depth planes. The drivers lack user controlled "differentiated Z-axis convergence". This cannot be solved through buying new monitors since the glasses and monitor does not communicate. The current convergence setting gives you some unified convergence that happens on all planes at once which unfortunately liberates you of any chance of solving or calibrating the issue away. What needs to be done is atleast GUI, medium and far plane convergence depths. I'm pretty sure you can solve this through driver intervention and if it has to be set in different depth steps for keyboard shortcuts or whatever, then that's ok too as long as it's stepped. I prefer stated ones as they are the most important for my type of games.

Examples of this which I imagine myself observing, for a first person shooter. I used arma2 as an example.

- If you calibrate convergence to GUI depth, then everything at far depth resembles the visual effect of crossing your eyes. The gun gets "ghosted".
- If you calibrate convergence to medium / iron crosshair depth, then GUI gets slightly crosseyed even with the Nvidia laser crosshair. And a you get a little bit of ghosting in the deep plane.
- If you calibrate convergence to the far plane, then the gun splits in two and the GUI becomes unreadable.



So if I could get some feedback from users with the same problem I would know if I'm on to something. It would also give Nvidia better chance of fixing it. And if Nvidia released beta drivers with these options enabled, we would on a wide array of users be able to respond if it's successful.
Hi.





First post, obviously. So be gentle! I'll give as much detail as I can because it's expensive equipment and I wan't it to be flawless, meaning if I'm being stupid please do tell. Don't know if I stumbled upon something new, but I've been experimenting with depth and convergence options. And I can't really find any calibration that seems to click for me except for reducing depth to as low as it gets. That's not how it should be solved and Nvidia probably agrees, and this problem occurs in both Nvidia certified games, not recommended, and unlisted games. So I'm not sure it's user error.



Problems I have met:

- Convergence / ghosting in _all_ games. (unsolved a.k.a contrast white on black inconvergence)

- Flicker (I guess there are two types. Game bug like in arma2 sniper scopes and IR-emitter line of sight stuff. The former is being worked on by Bohemia)

- Mafia2 isn't compatible with 3d and displays almost all textures as black. (Software bug. The rendering engine goes crazy and can't draw textures correctly. Apparent if glasses are off)

- Edge anomalies (game bug perhaps, arma2 is a nice example. textures and geometry doesn't render correctly outside of standard "fov" and nvidia somehow modifies ingame fov with frustum cycling (hidden control panel option)

- Latest driver package on the website for 3d vision win7 64bit is corrupted (but it installs anyway)



Preset:

I have a single LG W2326-something screen (nvidia recommended), connected to Nvidia 470 cards. On that I have an overclocked i7-930. I haven't detected any anomalies playing without 3d so visual artifacts only occur during stereoscopic mode. The problems occur both in SLI and without SLI. The screen runs in 1920*1080px @120Hz at the moment. Worthy of noting is that I use corrective glasses, and I have astigmatism. I have two pairs, none of them fit comfortably beneath the nvidia glasses. Astigmatism only affects sharpness of lines at different angles, and the foureyes is so that I can see far away. I.e my eye defect shouldn't affect perception much other than put the nvidia glasses at an awkward angle sometimes. It does not affect depth perception at all.



I've checked numerous amounts of posts, tips and so on. None have good tips, but I tried them anyway. Everything from filtering gamma to installing drivers and color profiles for my monitor and bypassing the USB hub for the IR-emitter. Also switching redraw rate (100, 110 and 120hz). Turning off ambient emitters that could interfere with the Nvidia gear. Repositioning the emitter.. etc. None of them are acceptable or actually supplies a solution.



My main issue is the topic related one. The more depth you add the more obvious the ghosting or inconvergence. And I truly hope this is not an intended effect, because then I have bought as we say here, a pig in a sack. That would be a first from nvidia in my experience.





Here is what I want you guys to confirm...



I think it happens because convergence doesn't work properly with different depth planes. The drivers lack user controlled "differentiated Z-axis convergence". This cannot be solved through buying new monitors since the glasses and monitor does not communicate. The current convergence setting gives you some unified convergence that happens on all planes at once which unfortunately liberates you of any chance of solving or calibrating the issue away. What needs to be done is atleast GUI, medium and far plane convergence depths. I'm pretty sure you can solve this through driver intervention and if it has to be set in different depth steps for keyboard shortcuts or whatever, then that's ok too as long as it's stepped. I prefer stated ones as they are the most important for my type of games.



Examples of this which I imagine myself observing, for a first person shooter. I used arma2 as an example.



- If you calibrate convergence to GUI depth, then everything at far depth resembles the visual effect of crossing your eyes. The gun gets "ghosted".

- If you calibrate convergence to medium / iron crosshair depth, then GUI gets slightly crosseyed even with the Nvidia laser crosshair. And a you get a little bit of ghosting in the deep plane.

- If you calibrate convergence to the far plane, then the gun splits in two and the GUI becomes unreadable.







So if I could get some feedback from users with the same problem I would know if I'm on to something. It would also give Nvidia better chance of fixing it. And if Nvidia released beta drivers with these options enabled, we would on a wide array of users be able to respond if it's successful.

#2
Posted 09/22/2010 09:20 PM   
Also worth noting is that post process effects and shadows converge differently to the rest of the 3d world. So having options for these would probably save the game developers time and let the user circumvent whatever calibration issues the developers cannot or will not fix (games that the developers don't patch anymore). A timesaver for everyone.
Also worth noting is that post process effects and shadows converge differently to the rest of the 3d world. So having options for these would probably save the game developers time and let the user circumvent whatever calibration issues the developers cannot or will not fix (games that the developers don't patch anymore). A timesaver for everyone.

#3
Posted 09/22/2010 09:24 PM   
Also worth noting is that post process effects and shadows converge differently to the rest of the 3d world. So having options for these would probably save the game developers time and let the user circumvent whatever calibration issues the developers cannot or will not fix (games that the developers don't patch anymore). A timesaver for everyone.
Also worth noting is that post process effects and shadows converge differently to the rest of the 3d world. So having options for these would probably save the game developers time and let the user circumvent whatever calibration issues the developers cannot or will not fix (games that the developers don't patch anymore). A timesaver for everyone.

#4
Posted 09/22/2010 09:24 PM   
Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...

First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.

Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on NVidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.

Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?
Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...



First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.



Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on NVidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.



Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?

#5
Posted 09/22/2010 11:22 PM   
Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...

First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.

Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on NVidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.

Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?
Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...



First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.



Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on NVidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.



Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?

#6
Posted 09/22/2010 11:22 PM   
Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!

But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.

[quote name='Zloth' post='1121164' date='Sep 23 2010, 01:22 AM']Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...[/quote]

They are on. The lights are shining. They work. They give a 3d depth.

[quote]First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.[/quote]

I tried all of them. With and without. They will never match a pair of glasses comfortably since the shafts connect at the same area. They have to redesign it so that it doesn't touch your head parallell to the corrective glasses and that's the only comfortable way to handle foureyes. Putting big sunglasses on your corrective glasses hurt and is clumsy. Putting a hat on your head does not (let's say the hat has a stereoscopic visor)

Also, nose types differ. You can't make generic over glasses glasses because nosetypes and how you actually wear corrective glasses differ _a lot_. This is why opticians offer to realign the shafts and nose pegs for you in shops, so they will sit tight and don't cause strain. Nvidia 3d vision glasses applies strain on your corrective glasses which then cause pain.

However! I will point out that this is a non-issue for me and I won't discuss it. I'm getting contact lenses.

[quote]Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on Nvidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.[/quote]

I downloaded them several times. I reinstalled and tried upgrading my packaging software. If winrar doesn't cut it, then Nvidia needs to make a statement on that. As far as I know, winrar is widely used. And winrar says the package is broken.

Since I have worked in a technical support and continue to do so in some way since the last 8 years, I can guarantee you with 100% accuracy that they could last a day and then some. Communication problems within humans on different departments is a surefire guarantee of that.

[quote]Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?[/quote]

I did do the medical test. The 3d is there. I did the stereoscopic 3d, and I can see both left right and blended. The 3d works in game.




Now read my initial post. It shows that there is a problem with nvidia's chosen convergence model. Understand it. Then reply.
Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!



But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.



[quote name='Zloth' post='1121164' date='Sep 23 2010, 01:22 AM']Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...



They are on. The lights are shining. They work. They give a 3d depth.



First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.




I tried all of them. With and without. They will never match a pair of glasses comfortably since the shafts connect at the same area. They have to redesign it so that it doesn't touch your head parallell to the corrective glasses and that's the only comfortable way to handle foureyes. Putting big sunglasses on your corrective glasses hurt and is clumsy. Putting a hat on your head does not (let's say the hat has a stereoscopic visor)



Also, nose types differ. You can't make generic over glasses glasses because nosetypes and how you actually wear corrective glasses differ _a lot_. This is why opticians offer to realign the shafts and nose pegs for you in shops, so they will sit tight and don't cause strain. Nvidia 3d vision glasses applies strain on your corrective glasses which then cause pain.



However! I will point out that this is a non-issue for me and I won't discuss it. I'm getting contact lenses.



Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on Nvidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.




I downloaded them several times. I reinstalled and tried upgrading my packaging software. If winrar doesn't cut it, then Nvidia needs to make a statement on that. As far as I know, winrar is widely used. And winrar says the package is broken.



Since I have worked in a technical support and continue to do so in some way since the last 8 years, I can guarantee you with 100% accuracy that they could last a day and then some. Communication problems within humans on different departments is a surefire guarantee of that.



Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?




I did do the medical test. The 3d is there. I did the stereoscopic 3d, and I can see both left right and blended. The 3d works in game.









Now read my initial post. It shows that there is a problem with nvidia's chosen convergence model. Understand it. Then reply.

#7
Posted 09/23/2010 05:38 AM   
Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!

But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.

[quote name='Zloth' post='1121164' date='Sep 23 2010, 01:22 AM']Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...[/quote]

They are on. The lights are shining. They work. They give a 3d depth.

[quote]First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.[/quote]

I tried all of them. With and without. They will never match a pair of glasses comfortably since the shafts connect at the same area. They have to redesign it so that it doesn't touch your head parallell to the corrective glasses and that's the only comfortable way to handle foureyes. Putting big sunglasses on your corrective glasses hurt and is clumsy. Putting a hat on your head does not (let's say the hat has a stereoscopic visor)

Also, nose types differ. You can't make generic over glasses glasses because nosetypes and how you actually wear corrective glasses differ _a lot_. This is why opticians offer to realign the shafts and nose pegs for you in shops, so they will sit tight and don't cause strain. Nvidia 3d vision glasses applies strain on your corrective glasses which then cause pain.

However! I will point out that this is a non-issue for me and I won't discuss it. I'm getting contact lenses.

[quote]Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on Nvidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.[/quote]

I downloaded them several times. I reinstalled and tried upgrading my packaging software. If winrar doesn't cut it, then Nvidia needs to make a statement on that. As far as I know, winrar is widely used. And winrar says the package is broken.

Since I have worked in a technical support and continue to do so in some way since the last 8 years, I can guarantee you with 100% accuracy that they could last a day and then some. Communication problems within humans on different departments is a surefire guarantee of that.

[quote]Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?[/quote]

I did do the medical test. The 3d is there. I did the stereoscopic 3d, and I can see both left right and blended. The 3d works in game.




Now read my initial post. It shows that there is a problem with nvidia's chosen convergence model. Understand it. Then reply.
Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!



But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.



[quote name='Zloth' post='1121164' date='Sep 23 2010, 01:22 AM']Ugh - lots of stuff in there and I don't think I understand what's happening with any of them. It almost sounds like you haven't turned the glasses on? OK, let's start from the beginning...



They are on. The lights are shining. They work. They give a 3d depth.



First the glasses themselves. Did you remove the nose piece and put in the bigger one? That's what lets you put them on along with glasses. The big nose piece lets you put the glasses further away from your face so you can put them in front of your normal glasses.




I tried all of them. With and without. They will never match a pair of glasses comfortably since the shafts connect at the same area. They have to redesign it so that it doesn't touch your head parallell to the corrective glasses and that's the only comfortable way to handle foureyes. Putting big sunglasses on your corrective glasses hurt and is clumsy. Putting a hat on your head does not (let's say the hat has a stereoscopic visor)



Also, nose types differ. You can't make generic over glasses glasses because nosetypes and how you actually wear corrective glasses differ _a lot_. This is why opticians offer to realign the shafts and nose pegs for you in shops, so they will sit tight and don't cause strain. Nvidia 3d vision glasses applies strain on your corrective glasses which then cause pain.



However! I will point out that this is a non-issue for me and I won't discuss it. I'm getting contact lenses.



Second, the drivers are not corrupt. If they were, they wouldn't last a day on Nvidia's website. When you first installed the glasses, did you uninstall your current drivers then use the drivers that came with the glasses? I would definitely try that first. There are some better drivers out there but we need to establish that your setup works before messing with that stuff.




I downloaded them several times. I reinstalled and tried upgrading my packaging software. If winrar doesn't cut it, then Nvidia needs to make a statement on that. As far as I know, winrar is widely used. And winrar says the package is broken.



Since I have worked in a technical support and continue to do so in some way since the last 8 years, I can guarantee you with 100% accuracy that they could last a day and then some. Communication problems within humans on different departments is a surefire guarantee of that.



Third, when you first get the drivers going, it does a medical test. Did you do this test? Did the 3D work there? What about with the "test stereoscopic 3D" test that you run from the Nvidia control panel?




I did do the medical test. The 3d is there. I did the stereoscopic 3d, and I can see both left right and blended. The 3d works in game.









Now read my initial post. It shows that there is a problem with nvidia's chosen convergence model. Understand it. Then reply.

#8
Posted 09/23/2010 05:38 AM   
[quote name='veracious' date='Sep 23 2010, 12:38 AM' post='1121252']
Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!

But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.



Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />
[quote name='veracious' date='Sep 23 2010, 12:38 AM' post='1121252']

Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!



But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.







Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />

AsRock X58 Extreme6 mobo
Intel Core-i7 950 @ 4ghz
12gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 780 3gb
Corsair TX 950w PSU
NZXT Phantom Red/Black Case
3d Vision 1 w/ Samsung 2233rz Monitor
3d Vision 2 w/ ASUS VG278HE Monitor

#9
Posted 09/23/2010 01:00 PM   
[quote name='veracious' date='Sep 23 2010, 12:38 AM' post='1121252']
Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!

But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.



Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />
[quote name='veracious' date='Sep 23 2010, 12:38 AM' post='1121252']

Okay, let's get something very clear in this thread which isn't obvious. I would give you an infraction or ban you if I could because your response is aggravating and counterproductive. Given the return questions it's apparent you did not read my post which is the basis for this entire thread. If you ignore that and it's consistent behavior I will report you to a moderator, because that's a posting deterrent to any user and derail this thread. Up your game!



But to cater to people who can't bother reading the wall of text I will answer these types of questions once, and no more.







Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />

AsRock X58 Extreme6 mobo
Intel Core-i7 950 @ 4ghz
12gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 780 3gb
Corsair TX 950w PSU
NZXT Phantom Red/Black Case
3d Vision 1 w/ Samsung 2233rz Monitor
3d Vision 2 w/ ASUS VG278HE Monitor

#10
Posted 09/23/2010 01:00 PM   
[quote name='AcidBong' post='1121358' date='Sep 23 2010, 03:00 PM']Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />[/quote]

I apologize to you and him. It was a pretty horrible mood swing due to outer circumstances. It's not his fault, I communicated my issue in a very narrow way and didnt' consider that. I hope he doesn't explode when he sees it.

Anyway, I'm thankful that you plowed through it. I would be equally thankful if he took his time with it aswell. He shouldn't feel bad about what he did. I'm thinking there was also some underlying misdirected aggression that this is something nvidia could've fixed before launch had they tested a wider array of equipment. But I guess it's the business, pushing hardware out as quick as possible and fixing some stuff afterwards. Also good to have in the back of the head is that nvidia recommends this equipment combination and informs me it's peachy, but they don't seem to have run it through Q&A. And their collaboration with display vendors must be flawed if this issue is so big. I'm guessing they just do as any company do, they communicate their protocols, abide to standards. But nothing more, because it's not cost effective. The consequences of that became obvious in this thread.

I.e if my assumptions are correct. Then Nvidia needs to work on their internal routines to gratify customers better.



So to repeat myself, in a broad sense. I tested the basics. I'm not a rookie when it comes to graphics, but I'm not someone who lives in assembly code all day either. If you take that into context, then it means that this problem is not likely to be user error. I've seen polls and screenshots of what was it, 85% of others having the same artifacts.
[quote name='AcidBong' post='1121358' date='Sep 23 2010, 03:00 PM']Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />



I apologize to you and him. It was a pretty horrible mood swing due to outer circumstances. It's not his fault, I communicated my issue in a very narrow way and didnt' consider that. I hope he doesn't explode when he sees it.



Anyway, I'm thankful that you plowed through it. I would be equally thankful if he took his time with it aswell. He shouldn't feel bad about what he did. I'm thinking there was also some underlying misdirected aggression that this is something nvidia could've fixed before launch had they tested a wider array of equipment. But I guess it's the business, pushing hardware out as quick as possible and fixing some stuff afterwards. Also good to have in the back of the head is that nvidia recommends this equipment combination and informs me it's peachy, but they don't seem to have run it through Q&A. And their collaboration with display vendors must be flawed if this issue is so big. I'm guessing they just do as any company do, they communicate their protocols, abide to standards. But nothing more, because it's not cost effective. The consequences of that became obvious in this thread.



I.e if my assumptions are correct. Then Nvidia needs to work on their internal routines to gratify customers better.







So to repeat myself, in a broad sense. I tested the basics. I'm not a rookie when it comes to graphics, but I'm not someone who lives in assembly code all day either. If you take that into context, then it means that this problem is not likely to be user error. I've seen polls and screenshots of what was it, 85% of others having the same artifacts.

#11
Posted 09/23/2010 04:42 PM   
[quote name='AcidBong' post='1121358' date='Sep 23 2010, 03:00 PM']Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />[/quote]

I apologize to you and him. It was a pretty horrible mood swing due to outer circumstances. It's not his fault, I communicated my issue in a very narrow way and didnt' consider that. I hope he doesn't explode when he sees it.

Anyway, I'm thankful that you plowed through it. I would be equally thankful if he took his time with it aswell. He shouldn't feel bad about what he did. I'm thinking there was also some underlying misdirected aggression that this is something nvidia could've fixed before launch had they tested a wider array of equipment. But I guess it's the business, pushing hardware out as quick as possible and fixing some stuff afterwards. Also good to have in the back of the head is that nvidia recommends this equipment combination and informs me it's peachy, but they don't seem to have run it through Q&A. And their collaboration with display vendors must be flawed if this issue is so big. I'm guessing they just do as any company do, they communicate their protocols, abide to standards. But nothing more, because it's not cost effective. The consequences of that became obvious in this thread.

I.e if my assumptions are correct. Then Nvidia needs to work on their internal routines to gratify customers better.



So to repeat myself, in a broad sense. I tested the basics. I'm not a rookie when it comes to graphics, but I'm not someone who lives in assembly code all day either. If you take that into context, then it means that this problem is not likely to be user error. I've seen polls and screenshots of what was it, 85% of others having the same artifacts.
[quote name='AcidBong' post='1121358' date='Sep 23 2010, 03:00 PM']Dude, curb the hostility. Your problem IS hard to understand. Now I don't have an answer for you and I read your "wall of text", but you need to CHILL. /verymad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':verymad:' />



I apologize to you and him. It was a pretty horrible mood swing due to outer circumstances. It's not his fault, I communicated my issue in a very narrow way and didnt' consider that. I hope he doesn't explode when he sees it.



Anyway, I'm thankful that you plowed through it. I would be equally thankful if he took his time with it aswell. He shouldn't feel bad about what he did. I'm thinking there was also some underlying misdirected aggression that this is something nvidia could've fixed before launch had they tested a wider array of equipment. But I guess it's the business, pushing hardware out as quick as possible and fixing some stuff afterwards. Also good to have in the back of the head is that nvidia recommends this equipment combination and informs me it's peachy, but they don't seem to have run it through Q&A. And their collaboration with display vendors must be flawed if this issue is so big. I'm guessing they just do as any company do, they communicate their protocols, abide to standards. But nothing more, because it's not cost effective. The consequences of that became obvious in this thread.



I.e if my assumptions are correct. Then Nvidia needs to work on their internal routines to gratify customers better.







So to repeat myself, in a broad sense. I tested the basics. I'm not a rookie when it comes to graphics, but I'm not someone who lives in assembly code all day either. If you take that into context, then it means that this problem is not likely to be user error. I've seen polls and screenshots of what was it, 85% of others having the same artifacts.

#12
Posted 09/23/2010 04:42 PM   
It's cool then. I know that things can be frustrating at times.

Well no tech is perfect man. This is still the best 3d I've ever experienced. As far as convergence on the z-axis plane goes, a lot of it depends on what POV the developers have programmed into the game. That can make for a bad 3d experience, but can be "fixed" at times with convergence adjustment (advanced settings in CP). Sometimes I have to push it way into the screen to get a comfortable experience, other times it can be pulled back to good effect. In a lot of FPS games the crosshair will not render in both eyes and stay at screen depth. This is when depth must be real low to aim properly. BUT, a good balance can come by pulling convergence back out of the screen which can still create an illusion of depth, just at a different 'distance'. Convergence pull back + low depth can also be used on highly contrasted games to reduce ghosting. In fact most of the games I play I only use about 30 to 40 percent depth since any more on my Samsung monitor can create a lot of ghosting, but use a high amount of convergence pullback.

As far as certain artifacts go in games there are many in non 3d vision ready titles. Unreal Engine 3 sticks out in my mind the most since it ALWAYS has problems with shadows, and volumetric fog and light. Lots of times shadows will be rendered only at screen depth, volumetric effects can create a doubleing of images. This has nothing to do with Nvidia's 3d glasses or the monitors. In this case it's the developers who need to fix said issues. I'm sure Nvidia is working as hard as ever to instill in developers proper programming for 3d gamers. But it's an uphill battle since it's really a niche product, and majority of gamers don't have any 3d solution Nvidia, iz3d, tridef... etc. But, most (not all sadly especially console ported games) have graphics options to be turned on and off. So some eye gouging artifacts, like shadows, can be turned off for a better experience.

3D vision is really a tweakers delight as far as I'm concerned. Every single game must be adjusted for best effect for the individual playing the games. I've managed to have a great experience with 3d and most of the games I have, which is a LOT hehe. It's just that every game needs a different depth/convergence balance. Anyway thats about all I can give ya on that matter, as I'm just a gamer and not a programmer or anything like that. :)
It's cool then. I know that things can be frustrating at times.



Well no tech is perfect man. This is still the best 3d I've ever experienced. As far as convergence on the z-axis plane goes, a lot of it depends on what POV the developers have programmed into the game. That can make for a bad 3d experience, but can be "fixed" at times with convergence adjustment (advanced settings in CP). Sometimes I have to push it way into the screen to get a comfortable experience, other times it can be pulled back to good effect. In a lot of FPS games the crosshair will not render in both eyes and stay at screen depth. This is when depth must be real low to aim properly. BUT, a good balance can come by pulling convergence back out of the screen which can still create an illusion of depth, just at a different 'distance'. Convergence pull back + low depth can also be used on highly contrasted games to reduce ghosting. In fact most of the games I play I only use about 30 to 40 percent depth since any more on my Samsung monitor can create a lot of ghosting, but use a high amount of convergence pullback.



As far as certain artifacts go in games there are many in non 3d vision ready titles. Unreal Engine 3 sticks out in my mind the most since it ALWAYS has problems with shadows, and volumetric fog and light. Lots of times shadows will be rendered only at screen depth, volumetric effects can create a doubleing of images. This has nothing to do with Nvidia's 3d glasses or the monitors. In this case it's the developers who need to fix said issues. I'm sure Nvidia is working as hard as ever to instill in developers proper programming for 3d gamers. But it's an uphill battle since it's really a niche product, and majority of gamers don't have any 3d solution Nvidia, iz3d, tridef... etc. But, most (not all sadly especially console ported games) have graphics options to be turned on and off. So some eye gouging artifacts, like shadows, can be turned off for a better experience.



3D vision is really a tweakers delight as far as I'm concerned. Every single game must be adjusted for best effect for the individual playing the games. I've managed to have a great experience with 3d and most of the games I have, which is a LOT hehe. It's just that every game needs a different depth/convergence balance. Anyway thats about all I can give ya on that matter, as I'm just a gamer and not a programmer or anything like that. :)

AsRock X58 Extreme6 mobo
Intel Core-i7 950 @ 4ghz
12gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 780 3gb
Corsair TX 950w PSU
NZXT Phantom Red/Black Case
3d Vision 1 w/ Samsung 2233rz Monitor
3d Vision 2 w/ ASUS VG278HE Monitor

#13
Posted 09/23/2010 05:37 PM   
It's cool then. I know that things can be frustrating at times.

Well no tech is perfect man. This is still the best 3d I've ever experienced. As far as convergence on the z-axis plane goes, a lot of it depends on what POV the developers have programmed into the game. That can make for a bad 3d experience, but can be "fixed" at times with convergence adjustment (advanced settings in CP). Sometimes I have to push it way into the screen to get a comfortable experience, other times it can be pulled back to good effect. In a lot of FPS games the crosshair will not render in both eyes and stay at screen depth. This is when depth must be real low to aim properly. BUT, a good balance can come by pulling convergence back out of the screen which can still create an illusion of depth, just at a different 'distance'. Convergence pull back + low depth can also be used on highly contrasted games to reduce ghosting. In fact most of the games I play I only use about 30 to 40 percent depth since any more on my Samsung monitor can create a lot of ghosting, but use a high amount of convergence pullback.

As far as certain artifacts go in games there are many in non 3d vision ready titles. Unreal Engine 3 sticks out in my mind the most since it ALWAYS has problems with shadows, and volumetric fog and light. Lots of times shadows will be rendered only at screen depth, volumetric effects can create a doubleing of images. This has nothing to do with Nvidia's 3d glasses or the monitors. In this case it's the developers who need to fix said issues. I'm sure Nvidia is working as hard as ever to instill in developers proper programming for 3d gamers. But it's an uphill battle since it's really a niche product, and majority of gamers don't have any 3d solution Nvidia, iz3d, tridef... etc. But, most (not all sadly especially console ported games) have graphics options to be turned on and off. So some eye gouging artifacts, like shadows, can be turned off for a better experience.

3D vision is really a tweakers delight as far as I'm concerned. Every single game must be adjusted for best effect for the individual playing the games. I've managed to have a great experience with 3d and most of the games I have, which is a LOT hehe. It's just that every game needs a different depth/convergence balance. Anyway thats about all I can give ya on that matter, as I'm just a gamer and not a programmer or anything like that. :)
It's cool then. I know that things can be frustrating at times.



Well no tech is perfect man. This is still the best 3d I've ever experienced. As far as convergence on the z-axis plane goes, a lot of it depends on what POV the developers have programmed into the game. That can make for a bad 3d experience, but can be "fixed" at times with convergence adjustment (advanced settings in CP). Sometimes I have to push it way into the screen to get a comfortable experience, other times it can be pulled back to good effect. In a lot of FPS games the crosshair will not render in both eyes and stay at screen depth. This is when depth must be real low to aim properly. BUT, a good balance can come by pulling convergence back out of the screen which can still create an illusion of depth, just at a different 'distance'. Convergence pull back + low depth can also be used on highly contrasted games to reduce ghosting. In fact most of the games I play I only use about 30 to 40 percent depth since any more on my Samsung monitor can create a lot of ghosting, but use a high amount of convergence pullback.



As far as certain artifacts go in games there are many in non 3d vision ready titles. Unreal Engine 3 sticks out in my mind the most since it ALWAYS has problems with shadows, and volumetric fog and light. Lots of times shadows will be rendered only at screen depth, volumetric effects can create a doubleing of images. This has nothing to do with Nvidia's 3d glasses or the monitors. In this case it's the developers who need to fix said issues. I'm sure Nvidia is working as hard as ever to instill in developers proper programming for 3d gamers. But it's an uphill battle since it's really a niche product, and majority of gamers don't have any 3d solution Nvidia, iz3d, tridef... etc. But, most (not all sadly especially console ported games) have graphics options to be turned on and off. So some eye gouging artifacts, like shadows, can be turned off for a better experience.



3D vision is really a tweakers delight as far as I'm concerned. Every single game must be adjusted for best effect for the individual playing the games. I've managed to have a great experience with 3d and most of the games I have, which is a LOT hehe. It's just that every game needs a different depth/convergence balance. Anyway thats about all I can give ya on that matter, as I'm just a gamer and not a programmer or anything like that. :)

AsRock X58 Extreme6 mobo
Intel Core-i7 950 @ 4ghz
12gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 780 3gb
Corsair TX 950w PSU
NZXT Phantom Red/Black Case
3d Vision 1 w/ Samsung 2233rz Monitor
3d Vision 2 w/ ASUS VG278HE Monitor

#14
Posted 09/23/2010 05:37 PM   
Wall of text post warning..

[quote name='AcidBong' post='1121471' date='Sep 23 2010, 07:37 PM']Well no tech is perfect man. This is still the best 3d I've ever experienced. As far as convergence on the z-axis plane goes, a lot of it depends on what POV the developers have programmed into the game.[/quote]

This is true, but I believe a joined solution is lacking. If you just expect game developers to solve their own problems with maybe a bit of support from them. Then nvidia will have a much lower remedyrate in what games they can requalify as "excellent" in the compatibility list. As will they with new titles that won't bother with attempting to qualify for this because the 3d buzz may be considered a fad. If it's solved centrally, through:

a) expanded user calibration on existing convergence model
b) toggle switch for different adaptations of the convergence calculation
c) forcing 3d compatibility in their drivers for future games

Then and only then will their list expand greatly to feature "excellent" in more older and newer games. You know, older titles that developers don't care about anymore due to resource constraints. Like Bioshock 1 for example. Since they're working on Bioshock Infinite now or whatever it's called, it's highly unlikely they'll bother to patch Bioshock 1. Nvidia has the power to better solve those issues by committing a bit of reevaluation on their current driver design.

I think they can improve their 3d vision brands recognition considerably if they don't just rely on future games 3d compatibility due to buzz, but also work on their current list without having the communities go nuts on individual game forums and consider it a non-issue simply because the games are aged. (or considered a fad)

-> I know c) is bad, because it would alienate developers. a) and b) are much better.

[quote]As far as certain artifacts go in games there are many in non 3d vision ready titles. Unreal Engine 3 sticks out in my mind the most since it ALWAYS has problems with shadows, and volumetric fog and light. Lots of times shadows will be rendered only at screen depth, volumetric effects can create a doubleing of images. This has nothing to do with Nvidia's 3d glasses or the monitors. In this case it's the developers who need to fix said issues.[/quote]

Also true. I'd like to add though that nvidia needs to beef up driver development. Game developers have economical constraints. They can reduce the third party resource issue to nearly 0 on some titles by adding those features in a driver. It enables the market and that creates goodwill in return.

[quote]3D vision is really a tweakers delight as far as I'm concerned. Every single game must be adjusted for best effect for the individual playing the games. I've managed to have a great experience with 3d and most of the games I have, which is a LOT hehe. It's just that every game needs a different depth/convergence balance.[/quote]

I tweak a lot by myself, but I should be able to expect a successful result in the end. As a consumer I shouldn't have to tweak at all and I don't want nvidia to force me into tweaking more than once per game. As it is now, no combination works so that I enjoy the experience fully. Both product and 3d buzz suffers for it. Also, a game recognition function as they do with other titles should be there too. I.e "set this variable globally" or based on .exe.

Nvidia managers needs to consider this, because the product has potential of being next generation awesome, but there is an overhaul to be done.
Wall of text post warning..



[quote name='AcidBong' post='1121471' date='Sep 23 2010, 07:37 PM']Well no tech is perfect man. This is still the best 3d I've ever experienced. As far as convergence on the z-axis plane goes, a lot of it depends on what POV the developers have programmed into the game.



This is true, but I believe a joined solution is lacking. If you just expect game developers to solve their own problems with maybe a bit of support from them. Then nvidia will have a much lower remedyrate in what games they can requalify as "excellent" in the compatibility list. As will they with new titles that won't bother with attempting to qualify for this because the 3d buzz may be considered a fad. If it's solved centrally, through:



a) expanded user calibration on existing convergence model

b) toggle switch for different adaptations of the convergence calculation

c) forcing 3d compatibility in their drivers for future games



Then and only then will their list expand greatly to feature "excellent" in more older and newer games. You know, older titles that developers don't care about anymore due to resource constraints. Like Bioshock 1 for example. Since they're working on Bioshock Infinite now or whatever it's called, it's highly unlikely they'll bother to patch Bioshock 1. Nvidia has the power to better solve those issues by committing a bit of reevaluation on their current driver design.



I think they can improve their 3d vision brands recognition considerably if they don't just rely on future games 3d compatibility due to buzz, but also work on their current list without having the communities go nuts on individual game forums and consider it a non-issue simply because the games are aged. (or considered a fad)



-> I know c) is bad, because it would alienate developers. a) and b) are much better.



As far as certain artifacts go in games there are many in non 3d vision ready titles. Unreal Engine 3 sticks out in my mind the most since it ALWAYS has problems with shadows, and volumetric fog and light. Lots of times shadows will be rendered only at screen depth, volumetric effects can create a doubleing of images. This has nothing to do with Nvidia's 3d glasses or the monitors. In this case it's the developers who need to fix said issues.




Also true. I'd like to add though that nvidia needs to beef up driver development. Game developers have economical constraints. They can reduce the third party resource issue to nearly 0 on some titles by adding those features in a driver. It enables the market and that creates goodwill in return.



3D vision is really a tweakers delight as far as I'm concerned. Every single game must be adjusted for best effect for the individual playing the games. I've managed to have a great experience with 3d and most of the games I have, which is a LOT hehe. It's just that every game needs a different depth/convergence balance.




I tweak a lot by myself, but I should be able to expect a successful result in the end. As a consumer I shouldn't have to tweak at all and I don't want nvidia to force me into tweaking more than once per game. As it is now, no combination works so that I enjoy the experience fully. Both product and 3d buzz suffers for it. Also, a game recognition function as they do with other titles should be there too. I.e "set this variable globally" or based on .exe.



Nvidia managers needs to consider this, because the product has potential of being next generation awesome, but there is an overhaul to be done.

#15
Posted 09/23/2010 07:26 PM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top