Quick poll: What 3D settings do you prefer?
  1 / 2    
Yo Just curious. If you can be bothered to do this please feel free to copy and paste and alter etc. Use quantitive or qualitive values - it is all good to me! :) FPS Depth = Convergence = 3rd Person Depth = Convergence = RTS Depth = Convergence = You're all the best! Thanks.
Yo

Just curious.

If you can be bothered to do this please feel free to copy and paste and alter etc. Use quantitive or qualitive values - it is all good to me! :)

FPS
Depth =
Convergence =

3rd Person
Depth =
Convergence =

RTS
Depth =
Convergence =


You're all the best! Thanks.

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#1
Posted 02/13/2013 03:45 PM   
It really depends on the game. Anyway I don't really know the exact values for each game, I just adjust them so it looks and feels as good as possible. Mostly I try to keep depth at 100% and adjust convergence to match it.
It really depends on the game. Anyway I don't really know the exact values for each game, I just adjust them so it looks and feels as good as possible. Mostly I try to keep depth at 100% and adjust convergence to match it.

Intel i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
Asus P8P67 PRO
Corsair XMS3 DDR3 8GB
nVidia GTX 660 SLI + nVidia 3D Vision
Asus Xonar Essence ST with AKG K601/Sennheiser HD 595
Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD + 5TB HDD Storage
Corsair AX 850 PSU
Coolermaster HAF 932 Case


HELIX MOD - A must for any 3D Vision gamer

#2
Posted 02/13/2013 04:18 PM   
Awesome! I am the same. Usually try to find the max popout point of the game and set the convergence to about quarter of the way out of the screen. Unless it's a gun then it must be behind the screen. I need to have the main focus behind the screen. My avatar must never popout, unless I have zoomed in of course. Thanks FPS Depth = 100% Convergence = gun is just behind the screen 3rd Person Depth = 100% Convergence = max popout is about 1/4 distance between me and screen RTS Depth = 100% Convergence = usualy high because you can avoid objects - toyification!
Awesome!

I am the same. Usually try to find the max popout point of the game and set the convergence to about quarter of the way out of the screen. Unless it's a gun then it must be behind the screen.

I need to have the main focus behind the screen. My avatar must never popout, unless I have zoomed in of course.

Thanks


FPS
Depth = 100%
Convergence = gun is just behind the screen

3rd Person
Depth = 100%
Convergence = max popout is about 1/4 distance between me and screen

RTS
Depth = 100%
Convergence = usualy high because you can avoid objects - toyification!

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#3
Posted 02/13/2013 04:33 PM   
I normally have depth set somewhere around 40-60% depending on the game, any more than that and things start to look a bit too distorted, and the distances are too stretched i.e. your arm looks like its about 7ft long. I usually set convergence just above the avatar's head in top down, or have their back just about at screen depth if its 3rd person. 1st person purely depends on how the weapon models appear, but I tend not to have too much popping out of the screen. For vehicles or cockpits I crank the convergence as high as it will go and still be comfortable.
I normally have depth set somewhere around 40-60% depending on the game, any more than that and things start to look a bit too distorted, and the distances are too stretched i.e. your arm looks like its about 7ft long.

I usually set convergence just above the avatar's head in top down, or have their back just about at screen depth if its 3rd person. 1st person purely depends on how the weapon models appear, but I tend not to have too much popping out of the screen. For vehicles or cockpits I crank the convergence as high as it will go and still be comfortable.

i7 4790k @ 4.6 - 16GB RAM - 2x SLI Titan X
27" ASUS ROG SWIFT, 28" - 65" Samsung UHD8200 4k 3DTV - Oculus Rift CV1 - 34" Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide

Old kit:
i5 2500k @ 4.4 - 8gb RAM
Acer H5360BD projector
GTX 580, SLI 670, GTX 980 EVGA SC
Acer XB280HK 4k 60hz
Oculus DK2

#4
Posted 02/13/2013 04:59 PM   
Depht normaly at 50 and sometimes even up to 70 percent on my 27 Asus! Convergenace often as the driver set it, sometimes if I want a little pop I change that but mostly I think it's fine by default!
Depht normaly at 50 and sometimes even up to 70 percent on my 27 Asus!
Convergenace often as the driver set it, sometimes if I want a little pop I change that but mostly I think it's fine by default!

#5
Posted 02/13/2013 05:53 PM   
130% depth, and as much convergence as possible without it being stupid.
130% depth, and as much convergence as possible without it being stupid.

#6
Posted 02/13/2013 11:51 PM   
asus vg27h monitor (27" monitor) FPS : around 90%% depth convergence so that i can still use iron sites (gun is close to screen but not converging) 3rd person: 50% - 90% depth convergence: maximum possible before I cant focus any longer (e.g. extreme pop out) RTS: same as 3rd person, with perhaps slightly less convergence. I love toyification, as because you get a truly different perspective for each eye, it makes it look beautiful imo. In fps, this effect feels really weird as its like being a tiny dude running around, which is weird, so i prefer more realistic proportions via pushing the game back into the screen.
asus vg27h monitor (27" monitor)

FPS : around 90%% depth
convergence so that i can still use iron sites (gun is close to screen but not converging)

3rd person: 50% - 90% depth
convergence: maximum possible before I cant focus any longer (e.g. extreme pop out)

RTS: same as 3rd person, with perhaps slightly less convergence.


I love toyification, as because you get a truly different perspective for each eye, it makes it look beautiful imo. In fps, this effect feels really weird as its like being a tiny dude running around, which is weird, so i prefer more realistic proportions via pushing the game back into the screen.

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#7
Posted 02/14/2013 09:45 AM   
My depth is about 64% for all games. I use an Acer H5360BD, and it being a projector, the Nvidia control panel has no way of knowing the size of my screen. It happens to be 90 inches, but I break out my tape measure to make sure distant objects are physically separated on the screen by 6.0 cm, which is the distance between my eyes. So for my set up, "64%" is the maximum, 100% depth. Luckily depth stays the same across all games, so I only need to adjust convergence. Usually I adjust based on two factors. One is the user interface as well as subtitles. I want to set convergence such that the image is behind the user interface most of the time. The other factor is whether or not the image looks to be the right size. With convergence set too high, thinks look miniaturized. With convergence set too low, things look too big. My main goal with 3D is realism, so it can be a delicate balance.
My depth is about 64% for all games. I use an Acer H5360BD, and it being a projector, the Nvidia control panel has no way of knowing the size of my screen. It happens to be 90 inches, but I break out my tape measure to make sure distant objects are physically separated on the screen by 6.0 cm, which is the distance between my eyes. So for my set up, "64%" is the maximum, 100% depth.

Luckily depth stays the same across all games, so I only need to adjust convergence. Usually I adjust based on two factors. One is the user interface as well as subtitles. I want to set convergence such that the image is behind the user interface most of the time. The other factor is whether or not the image looks to be the right size. With convergence set too high, thinks look miniaturized. With convergence set too low, things look too big. My main goal with 3D is realism, so it can be a delicate balance.

#8
Posted 02/14/2013 10:15 AM   
Hey there Airion, your assumption about your set up giving you 100% may not be entirely accurate. If your separation on screen is 6cm, that does necessarily translate to 6cm distance on your eyes, as unfortunately, even though the object separation will be parallel to your eyes relative to the universe, to your brain it wont be parallel because of perspective. Eg, bring something wider then then the distance between your eyes up to your face. It is obviously impossible to focus on both sides. As you move away from that item however, it will move further and further into the centre of your vision until you can focus on both sides. A great example of this is the moon. It is 2159 miles across, far wider then your eyes. Yet, you if you look up on a clear sky, you can easily focus on both sides of the moon. Perspective ;-) so if you're sat far away from your screen, 6cm separation on your screen will be a shallower depth (but conversely convergence will increase and so you end up with more pop out) (lets not forget that to simulate an object that is "infinitely" far away, the angle to each eye is so steep that it is, for all intense and purposes, 90 degrees, or to be exact, 89.9, with the 9 recurring infinitely. (meaning each image should be in the centre of the eyes view) Which is why it's actually very difficult to work out correct depth without trigonometry relative to the viewer position and screen size etc, and eye distance. Basically, if you want to achieve infinite depth, wack up the depth until your eyes cant take it any longer, and then put it back until it is perfectly comfortable, and you should end up with something close to infinite depth for far away objects with relative ease.
Hey there Airion, your assumption about your set up giving you 100% may not be entirely accurate. If your separation on screen is 6cm, that does necessarily translate to 6cm distance on your eyes, as unfortunately, even though the object separation will be parallel to your eyes relative to the universe, to your brain it wont be parallel because of perspective. Eg, bring something wider then then the distance between your eyes up to your face. It is obviously impossible to focus on both sides. As you move away from that item however, it will move further and further into the centre of your vision until you can focus on both sides.

A great example of this is the moon. It is 2159 miles across, far wider then your eyes. Yet, you if you look up on a clear sky, you can easily focus on both sides of the moon. Perspective ;-)

so if you're sat far away from your screen, 6cm separation on your screen will be a shallower depth (but conversely convergence will increase and so you end up with more pop out)

(lets not forget that to simulate an object that is "infinitely" far away, the angle to each eye is so steep that it is, for all intense and purposes, 90 degrees, or to be exact, 89.9, with the 9 recurring infinitely. (meaning each image should be in the centre of the eyes view)

Which is why it's actually very difficult to work out correct depth without trigonometry relative to the viewer position and screen size etc, and eye distance. Basically, if you want to achieve infinite depth, wack up the depth until your eyes cant take it any longer, and then put it back until it is perfectly comfortable, and you should end up with something close to infinite depth for far away objects with relative ease.

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#9
Posted 02/14/2013 12:23 PM   
The above is absolutely true. I'm on a 27" display and my max seperation is somewhere around 9cm's, its perfectly comfortable, translates to a registry entry of 37 over the standard 54. The further back you sit the greater the seperation you can have without causing any damage at all, if I move 10ft back from the screen 350% is easily focusable, but obviously if you were to go and move to normal sitting distance it would diverge your eyes and your head would explode. Only makes sense that Nvidia set the 100% point to be impossible to cause divergence, since it knows your screen size and roughly how far you would be sitting from it. Easy way to figure out whats comfortable for you is to sit a little closer than you normally sit, boot up a game and set the depth super high, and just stare off into the distance for a while and see if its comfortable.
The above is absolutely true. I'm on a 27" display and my max seperation is somewhere around 9cm's, its perfectly comfortable, translates to a registry entry of 37 over the standard 54. The further back you sit the greater the seperation you can have without causing any damage at all, if I move 10ft back from the screen 350% is easily focusable, but obviously if you were to go and move to normal sitting distance it would diverge your eyes and your head would explode.

Only makes sense that Nvidia set the 100% point to be impossible to cause divergence, since it knows your screen size and roughly how far you would be sitting from it. Easy way to figure out whats comfortable for you is to sit a little closer than you normally sit, boot up a game and set the depth super high, and just stare off into the distance for a while and see if its comfortable.

#10
Posted 02/14/2013 07:36 PM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"] The further back you sit the greater the seperation you can have without causing any damage at all, if I move 10ft back from the screen 350% is easily focusable, but obviously if you were to go and move to normal sitting distance it would diverge your eyes and your head would explode.[/quote] Well there you have it kiddies, exploding heads, and i can confirm this is true, im still in recovery ;-)
Cookybiscuit said: The further back you sit the greater the seperation you can have without causing any damage at all, if I move 10ft back from the screen 350% is easily focusable, but obviously if you were to go and move to normal sitting distance it would diverge your eyes and your head would explode.


Well there you have it kiddies, exploding heads, and i can confirm this is true, im still in recovery ;-)

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

#11
Posted 02/14/2013 08:12 PM   
Almost always 100% depth and conv for each game its own. Prefer it when depth is really noticable without making game and characters toyish
Almost always 100% depth and conv for each game its own. Prefer it when depth is really noticable without making game and characters toyish

i5 2500K/16gb/GTX 970/Asus VG278H + Sony HMZ-T1

#12
Posted 02/14/2013 09:16 PM   
What you guys are finding is that given say, 9cm separation on the screen, by moving back the angle that your eyes have to diverge to see the two images decreases to the point that it can be viewed comfortably. The lines of sight between your two eyes come closer and closer to parallel as you move back, though they'll never get to [i]exactly[/i] parallel. [quote="foreverseeking"]A great example of this is the moon. It is 2159 miles across, far wider then your eyes. Yet, you if you look up on a clear sky, you can easily focus on both sides of the moon. Perspective ;-)[/quote] I see where you're coming from here, but it has nothing to do with stereovision. Let's think about what the left and right eyes are seeing when we look at the moon. The 6.5cm distance between our eyes is insignificant when looking at something that far away. As such, both eyes look straight on, parallel, and see the exact same thing. The moon is in the same position in each eye's image because of, as you say, perspective, given the vast distance between our eyes and the moon. Consider this: let's say we put a giant 3D monitor out in space. We want it to show a 3D image of the moon realistically, such that it looks the same as if we were looking at the real thing. How much separation does the left and right images of the moon need to be on this monitor? By the logic you guys were using, the separation would need to be very great to compensate for the distance between us and the monitor. But the answer, as you can probably see, is zero, because the monitor is already occupying the correct distance from us for the moon. (6.5 cm would work too, because it's effectively zero at that distance.) By increasing the distance to the monitor, there is no need to increase the separation of the two images for objects that are supposed to look far away. Convergence for objects closer than infinity is the opposite. Let's say we want an object to appear 1 meter away from us. If we'd viewing a 3D monitor from a distance of 1 meter away, how much separation do the left and right images of the object need? Zero, because the monitor is already occupying the correct distance. How much separation do the left and right images of the object need on our giant 3D monitor in space? The separation would need to be hundreds of thousands of kilometers in order to compensate for the actual distance between us and the monitor. So as you move back, consider adjusting convergence, not depth.
What you guys are finding is that given say, 9cm separation on the screen, by moving back the angle that your eyes have to diverge to see the two images decreases to the point that it can be viewed comfortably. The lines of sight between your two eyes come closer and closer to parallel as you move back, though they'll never get to exactly parallel.

foreverseeking said:A great example of this is the moon. It is 2159 miles across, far wider then your eyes. Yet, you if you look up on a clear sky, you can easily focus on both sides of the moon. Perspective ;-)


I see where you're coming from here, but it has nothing to do with stereovision. Let's think about what the left and right eyes are seeing when we look at the moon. The 6.5cm distance between our eyes is insignificant when looking at something that far away. As such, both eyes look straight on, parallel, and see the exact same thing. The moon is in the same position in each eye's image because of, as you say, perspective, given the vast distance between our eyes and the moon.

Consider this: let's say we put a giant 3D monitor out in space. We want it to show a 3D image of the moon realistically, such that it looks the same as if we were looking at the real thing. How much separation does the left and right images of the moon need to be on this monitor? By the logic you guys were using, the separation would need to be very great to compensate for the distance between us and the monitor. But the answer, as you can probably see, is zero, because the monitor is already occupying the correct distance from us for the moon. (6.5 cm would work too, because it's effectively zero at that distance.) By increasing the distance to the monitor, there is no need to increase the separation of the two images for objects that are supposed to look far away.

Convergence for objects closer than infinity is the opposite. Let's say we want an object to appear 1 meter away from us. If we'd viewing a 3D monitor from a distance of 1 meter away, how much separation do the left and right images of the object need? Zero, because the monitor is already occupying the correct distance. How much separation do the left and right images of the object need on our giant 3D monitor in space? The separation would need to be hundreds of thousands of kilometers in order to compensate for the actual distance between us and the monitor.

So as you move back, consider adjusting convergence, not depth.

#13
Posted 02/15/2013 01:31 AM   
Depth at about 90% (I've got a 22" monitor) Convergence as high as I can get it without too much of the objects popping out through 2D GUI or the edge of the screen. Unfortunately, gun hands often make popout impossible on FPS games but first person RPGs can do it if the GUI isn't too bad. Of course, some games don't get 3D at all. Civilization and Crusader Kings jump to mind there. Those are both board games so I don't see much point in 3D with them. I have to dump some shooters, too, because of crosshair problems.
Depth at about 90% (I've got a 22" monitor)

Convergence as high as I can get it without too much of the objects popping out through 2D GUI or the edge of the screen. Unfortunately, gun hands often make popout impossible on FPS games but first person RPGs can do it if the GUI isn't too bad.

Of course, some games don't get 3D at all. Civilization and Crusader Kings jump to mind there. Those are both board games so I don't see much point in 3D with them. I have to dump some shooters, too, because of crosshair problems.

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

-- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"

#14
Posted 02/15/2013 02:38 AM   
[quote="Airion"].[/quote] Interesting information, but I'm not sure what to believe. I was under the impression having on screen separation greater than pupillary distance is fine, for example projector users. Suppose the only way to see if its fine is to get someone to look at your eyes when your focusing something distant, but I don't think I've spent more than an hour using 3D Vision at anything less than 100% depth, and don't feel any pain using more than that. I'm pretty sure I know what it feels like to diverge your eyes, having screwed around with settings and gone to far. Feels like aching and itching, and a pressure wanting to push your eyes back straight. I didn't know your eyes could be diverged comfortably.
Airion said:.

Interesting information, but I'm not sure what to believe. I was under the impression having on screen separation greater than pupillary distance is fine, for example projector users. Suppose the only way to see if its fine is to get someone to look at your eyes when your focusing something distant, but I don't think I've spent more than an hour using 3D Vision at anything less than 100% depth, and don't feel any pain using more than that.

I'm pretty sure I know what it feels like to diverge your eyes, having screwed around with settings and gone to far. Feels like aching and itching, and a pressure wanting to push your eyes back straight. I didn't know your eyes could be diverged comfortably.

#15
Posted 02/15/2013 04:06 AM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top