If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
[quote name='Grestorn' date='02 December 2011 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1322828280' post='1336390']
Ok, I see your point, ds445.
If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
[/quote]
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
[quote name='Grestorn' date='02 December 2011 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1322828280' post='1336390']
Ok, I see your point, ds445.
If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
ds445,
I don't see a problem with the way that BF3 implements 3D and with it *fulfilling the conditions* of being considered as 3D Vision Ready. Now playing and experiencing it in 3D at least on multiplayer leaves a lot to be desired with this gen of hardware, but I don't find that to be the case on single player. I'm a rare case of a person that plays 3D competitve multiplayer as far as possible, but most people play 3D for the single player experience. What I take to be '3D Vision Ready' is as Grestorn stated, it was designed with 3D Vision in mind and has no graphical rendering problems or anomalies whatsoever with two images. So let's take a test case, let's say you want to run Metro 2033 with an 8800GT in DX10 High Quality and you iterate that you have a poor 3D experience and poor performance. What exactly changes about Metro's 3D rating when you upgrade from an 8800GT to a GTX 580? Did Metro change or did your ability to run it change? Now you might suggest that that is an unfair comparison as I'm alluding to hardware that isn't on the market yet, but the underpinnings of the argument are still untouched. That's just the nature of the PC platform, which is an aggressively progressive platform as far as technology. What would you take to be the staying power of Battlefield 3 and the Frostbite 2 engine? What's the gap between BF2 and BF3? How many spin-offs will we see on this engine (e.g. a Bad Company 3?)? This engine and its 3D capability will become very relevant as we see more hardware iterations in the future from Nvidia. Am I a little disappointed that I can't run BF3 in Ultra in Multiplayer on Nvidia's flagship setup (GTX 590 Quad SLI)? Sure, but the flip side of that is that I like what I see, and I like the technology that I see DICE progressing with on the PC. What does it mean when a software starts outstripping it's contemporary hardware platform? It means we have an emphasis back towards PC again by a developer. Some people don't like that as it means sucking more out of your wallet to keep up (and that is certainly true), but this is my hobby and what I like to do and I like the progress. A PC is an RPG machine itself. The PC community often complains about console ports, but console ports have the nice ring of allowing a wide range of hardware to run the game with relative ease, with the flip side of that being usually a 'dumbed down' game from the view-point of PC standards. It's those 'PC Standards' that we demand from developers which then produces offerings like Crysis and Battlefield 3. Yeah it can be quite rough at the beginning (my 8800 GTX SLIs took a beating when Crysis came out), but let's not cut our own throats for what we gain in the long run. The Frostbite 2 engine is a damn good engine and I welcome it with open arms.
Furthermore, I would not discount Nvidia's or Dice's ability to have 3D optomized on the current hardware gen either with a driver or a patch.
I don't see a problem with the way that BF3 implements 3D and with it *fulfilling the conditions* of being considered as 3D Vision Ready. Now playing and experiencing it in 3D at least on multiplayer leaves a lot to be desired with this gen of hardware, but I don't find that to be the case on single player. I'm a rare case of a person that plays 3D competitve multiplayer as far as possible, but most people play 3D for the single player experience. What I take to be '3D Vision Ready' is as Grestorn stated, it was designed with 3D Vision in mind and has no graphical rendering problems or anomalies whatsoever with two images. So let's take a test case, let's say you want to run Metro 2033 with an 8800GT in DX10 High Quality and you iterate that you have a poor 3D experience and poor performance. What exactly changes about Metro's 3D rating when you upgrade from an 8800GT to a GTX 580? Did Metro change or did your ability to run it change? Now you might suggest that that is an unfair comparison as I'm alluding to hardware that isn't on the market yet, but the underpinnings of the argument are still untouched. That's just the nature of the PC platform, which is an aggressively progressive platform as far as technology. What would you take to be the staying power of Battlefield 3 and the Frostbite 2 engine? What's the gap between BF2 and BF3? How many spin-offs will we see on this engine (e.g. a Bad Company 3?)? This engine and its 3D capability will become very relevant as we see more hardware iterations in the future from Nvidia. Am I a little disappointed that I can't run BF3 in Ultra in Multiplayer on Nvidia's flagship setup (GTX 590 Quad SLI)? Sure, but the flip side of that is that I like what I see, and I like the technology that I see DICE progressing with on the PC. What does it mean when a software starts outstripping it's contemporary hardware platform? It means we have an emphasis back towards PC again by a developer. Some people don't like that as it means sucking more out of your wallet to keep up (and that is certainly true), but this is my hobby and what I like to do and I like the progress. A PC is an RPG machine itself. The PC community often complains about console ports, but console ports have the nice ring of allowing a wide range of hardware to run the game with relative ease, with the flip side of that being usually a 'dumbed down' game from the view-point of PC standards. It's those 'PC Standards' that we demand from developers which then produces offerings like Crysis and Battlefield 3. Yeah it can be quite rough at the beginning (my 8800 GTX SLIs took a beating when Crysis came out), but let's not cut our own throats for what we gain in the long run. The Frostbite 2 engine is a damn good engine and I welcome it with open arms.
Furthermore, I would not discount Nvidia's or Dice's ability to have 3D optomized on the current hardware gen either with a driver or a patch.
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
Re.convergence -thanks for links I understand now, but I'm happy with the 3d (on iracing/rfactor) so don't really need to use it
Re.bf3
no feedback yet from nvidia about a fix this dosnt look good does it, I even tried 800x600 res on single screen with everything on low and still no good terrible performance, am now running on the latest beta driver but no change, I'm really starting to think I wasted my dosh on bf3
I7 2600. @ 4.6ghz
16gb ram
2x gtx580's 3gb versions ( running cool&stable on 940mhz core clock )
3x acer 27" 3d monitors
Duel power supply
Re.convergence -thanks for links I understand now, but I'm happy with the 3d (on iracing/rfactor) so don't really need to use it
Re.bf3
no feedback yet from nvidia about a fix this dosnt look good does it, I even tried 800x600 res on single screen with everything on low and still no good terrible performance, am now running on the latest beta driver but no change, I'm really starting to think I wasted my dosh on bf3
It is not 3D Ready based solely on the fact that the crosshair does not render at the correct depth and the NVIDIA crosshair is not a valid workaround since it does not render correctly either in many scenarios. You can't go shooting people in a shooting game when you can't even aim at them...
It is not 3D Ready based solely on the fact that the crosshair does not render at the correct depth and the NVIDIA crosshair is not a valid workaround since it does not render correctly either in many scenarios. You can't go shooting people in a shooting game when you can't even aim at them...
Tried it 2d and it runs ok (never use 2d now though it looked like a flat strange tv cartoon lol),
The problem is with 3d vision performance, it cuts fps in half which anything below a 3D fps of 50 is unplayable, turning down settings makes no diference
Is there anyway of putting bf3 into dx10 mode?
If they don't optimise this 3D then no go for me
Cheese man
Yes that correct the crosshair is wrong too, a total mess up hey, total joke
Tried it 2d and it runs ok (never use 2d now though it looked like a flat strange tv cartoon lol),
The problem is with 3d vision performance, it cuts fps in half which anything below a 3D fps of 50 is unplayable, turning down settings makes no diference
Is there anyway of putting bf3 into dx10 mode?
If they don't optimise this 3D then no go for me
Cheese man
Yes that correct the crosshair is wrong too, a total mess up hey, total joke
[quote name='photios' date='02 December 2011 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1322855134' post='1336584']
I do not have a crosshair problem. Are you guys playing in multiplayer or single player?
[/quote]
It happens in both SP and MP at max depth. It's not off by much but it [i]is[/i] off a bit, you see double crosshairs if you're aiming at something.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='02 December 2011 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1322861619' post='1336626']
It happens in both SP and MP at max depth. It's not off by much but it [i]is[/i] off a bit, you see double crosshairs if you're aiming at something.
[/quote]
I am not seeing any crosshair problems. Can you please be more specific? Can you take a 3D screenshot showing the problem?
[quote name='Stange' date='02 December 2011 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1322814669' post='1336294']
I don't think adjusting the convergence is going to fix the in game sight either; it's a value the developers need to adjust as it is not a static but dynamic object.
I REALLY hope they do something about it otherwise it's unplayable.
[/quote]
You would be surprised actually, Convergence can usually fix slightly off-focus objects like crosshair by shifting your point of focus within the scene. For example, with BF3, the problem right now is that convergence is aligned so that the crosshairs themselves are in focus when you look at the crosshairs. Technically, there's nothing wrong with this implementation or its depth, the problem is that you actually want to focus on what's [i]BEHIND[/i] the crosshairs. When you do that, the crosshairs suddenly look like they are misaligned, or at the wrong depth, when they aren't.
There's an easy test you can do to mimic this effect. If you look at a door or something maybe 20 feet away, hold your finger about 6 inches in front of your eyes between you and the door. Focus on your finger, you may have to go slightly cross-eyed, but you can focus and it looks like a single image. Now, focus on the door behind it, suddenly your finger looks like 2 split images correct? Now start pulling your finger away from your face, toward the door while focusing on the door. You will start to see your finger "converge" into a single image. You probably won't be able to extend your arm far enough so that your finger looks like a single image, but if you could extend it another 2-3 feet it would. About 6 feet away and you should be able to focus on a point and the objects behind it without too much trouble.
This is exactly what Convergence can do with 3D Vision, as it shifts your focus point within the scene. So you would want to try and focus on what's behind the crosshairs, then bring convergence back so that the crosshairs line up on top of it. There's other tricks devs can do like change the offsets specifically for crosshairs/ironsights but I'm pretty confident Convergence would fix the crosshair issue in BF3.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='02 December 2011 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1322850930' post='1336547']
It is not 3D Ready based solely on the fact that the crosshair does not render at the correct depth and the NVIDIA crosshair is not a valid workaround since it does not render correctly either in many scenarios. You can't go shooting people in a shooting game when you can't even aim at them...
[/quote]
I don't think its at the wrong depth actually, I just think it needs to be further calibrated. Instead of focusing on the crosshairs, need to focus behind them, then calibrate the crosshairs so they line up. Borderlands is actually very similar, where its default convergence value can lead to misaligned crosshairs. Simply tweaking convergence makes everything perfect from scope crosshairs to ironsights.
[quote name='Stange' date='02 December 2011 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1322814669' post='1336294']
I don't think adjusting the convergence is going to fix the in game sight either; it's a value the developers need to adjust as it is not a static but dynamic object.
I REALLY hope they do something about it otherwise it's unplayable.
You would be surprised actually, Convergence can usually fix slightly off-focus objects like crosshair by shifting your point of focus within the scene. For example, with BF3, the problem right now is that convergence is aligned so that the crosshairs themselves are in focus when you look at the crosshairs. Technically, there's nothing wrong with this implementation or its depth, the problem is that you actually want to focus on what's BEHIND the crosshairs. When you do that, the crosshairs suddenly look like they are misaligned, or at the wrong depth, when they aren't.
There's an easy test you can do to mimic this effect. If you look at a door or something maybe 20 feet away, hold your finger about 6 inches in front of your eyes between you and the door. Focus on your finger, you may have to go slightly cross-eyed, but you can focus and it looks like a single image. Now, focus on the door behind it, suddenly your finger looks like 2 split images correct? Now start pulling your finger away from your face, toward the door while focusing on the door. You will start to see your finger "converge" into a single image. You probably won't be able to extend your arm far enough so that your finger looks like a single image, but if you could extend it another 2-3 feet it would. About 6 feet away and you should be able to focus on a point and the objects behind it without too much trouble.
This is exactly what Convergence can do with 3D Vision, as it shifts your focus point within the scene. So you would want to try and focus on what's behind the crosshairs, then bring convergence back so that the crosshairs line up on top of it. There's other tricks devs can do like change the offsets specifically for crosshairs/ironsights but I'm pretty confident Convergence would fix the crosshair issue in BF3.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='02 December 2011 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1322850930' post='1336547']
It is not 3D Ready based solely on the fact that the crosshair does not render at the correct depth and the NVIDIA crosshair is not a valid workaround since it does not render correctly either in many scenarios. You can't go shooting people in a shooting game when you can't even aim at them...
I don't think its at the wrong depth actually, I just think it needs to be further calibrated. Instead of focusing on the crosshairs, need to focus behind them, then calibrate the crosshairs so they line up. Borderlands is actually very similar, where its default convergence value can lead to misaligned crosshairs. Simply tweaking convergence makes everything perfect from scope crosshairs to ironsights.
[quote name='ds445' date='02 December 2011 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1322829443' post='1336403']
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
[/quote]
OK, but the problem is you are injecting your criteria and perception of what the 3D rating system should be instead of taking Nvidia's rating system for what it is and acknowledging its faults. Its pretty obvious you and most others here, including myself, value the quality of the 3D images higher than peripheral considerations that may or may not be rendered in 3D. In order to achieve a quality 3D effect, Convergence is often integral so we value control over it higher than maybe HUD elements or even nameplates/icons. Its clear that Nvidia and their dev partners do not place as much emphasis there, but instead rewards the effort of the devs if they render all major game assets, cursors, crosshairs, graphic settings and effects in stereo and 3D Vision users are able to enable 3D without any significant user-intervention. If you look back on their ratings for 3D Vision games, they are remarkably consistent in that regard.
Basically, take the 3D Vision Ready (and all the ratings really) with a grain of salt and use them as a general guideline only. I rate my games in 3D Vision using my own criteria and it certainly doesn't agree with Nvidia's rating system. There's other rating programs out there like GG3D that allow you to do similar, the more feedback from multiple sources, the better idea we'll get of a game's impression on its audience in 3D without relying on a single source (Nvidia).
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
[/quote]
Yes exactly, that's generally all I've expected from 3D Vision Ready titles, no glaring artifacts or potentially game-breaking issues (like 2D mouse cursor/crosshairs), and there's plenty of 3D Vision Ready games I rate lower than "Excellent" or even "Not Rated" titles due to locked convergence. Still, I wouldn't have any problem recommending any 3D Vision Ready title to a 3D neophyte because I could say with reasonable certainty that they would get a good 3D experience with very little frustration or problems.
[quote name='ds445' date='02 December 2011 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1322829443' post='1336403']
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
OK, but the problem is you are injecting your criteria and perception of what the 3D rating system should be instead of taking Nvidia's rating system for what it is and acknowledging its faults. Its pretty obvious you and most others here, including myself, value the quality of the 3D images higher than peripheral considerations that may or may not be rendered in 3D. In order to achieve a quality 3D effect, Convergence is often integral so we value control over it higher than maybe HUD elements or even nameplates/icons. Its clear that Nvidia and their dev partners do not place as much emphasis there, but instead rewards the effort of the devs if they render all major game assets, cursors, crosshairs, graphic settings and effects in stereo and 3D Vision users are able to enable 3D without any significant user-intervention. If you look back on their ratings for 3D Vision games, they are remarkably consistent in that regard.
Basically, take the 3D Vision Ready (and all the ratings really) with a grain of salt and use them as a general guideline only. I rate my games in 3D Vision using my own criteria and it certainly doesn't agree with Nvidia's rating system. There's other rating programs out there like GG3D that allow you to do similar, the more feedback from multiple sources, the better idea we'll get of a game's impression on its audience in 3D without relying on a single source (Nvidia).
[quote name='rustyk' date='02 December 2011 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1322843940' post='1336507']
Interesting discussion!
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
Yes exactly, that's generally all I've expected from 3D Vision Ready titles, no glaring artifacts or potentially game-breaking issues (like 2D mouse cursor/crosshairs), and there's plenty of 3D Vision Ready games I rate lower than "Excellent" or even "Not Rated" titles due to locked convergence. Still, I wouldn't have any problem recommending any 3D Vision Ready title to a 3D neophyte because I could say with reasonable certainty that they would get a good 3D experience with very little frustration or problems.
[quote name='andrewf@nvidia' date='02 December 2011 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1322863326' post='1336640']
I am not seeing any crosshair problems. Can you please be more specific? Can you take a 3D screenshot showing the problem?
[/quote]
You can see the problem very clearly here Andrew.
1st picture shows minimum depth, I'm aiming at the A/C unit and the holo sight is clearly fixed on a single point.
2nd picture is same thing, max depth, but when you focus on the A/C unit the holo sight breaks up into 2 images. Can't make any headshots like that. This is why we need convergence control, so we can focus on objects behind the crosshairs and bring them back to focus with convergence controls.
[quote name='andrewf@nvidia' date='02 December 2011 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1322863326' post='1336640']
I am not seeing any crosshair problems. Can you please be more specific? Can you take a 3D screenshot showing the problem?
You can see the problem very clearly here Andrew.
1st picture shows minimum depth, I'm aiming at the A/C unit and the holo sight is clearly fixed on a single point.
2nd picture is same thing, max depth, but when you focus on the A/C unit the holo sight breaks up into 2 images. Can't make any headshots like that. This is why we need convergence control, so we can focus on objects behind the crosshairs and bring them back to focus with convergence controls.
If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
Ok, I see your point, ds445.
If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
[/quote]
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
Ok, I see your point, ds445.
If you think "3DReady" as "even better than excellent", then you're absolutely right in that those games don't deserve that classification.
But that's just a misunderstanding on that lable.
3DReady doesn't mean "better than excellent". It also doesn't mean "3DVision compatible". The only meaning it has is:
"The game was developed with 3DVision in mind"
Not more and not less.
There are a lot of games which work excellent, even though 3DVision was never even considered by the developers. And there are many 3DReady games which aren't that great in 3D in the end, as we all know.
That "3DReady" is one of the categories among "fair, good and excellent" is misleadig a bit, agreed. But I don't think that nVidia would dare to rate a game which they have an active 3DVision marketing deal with with anything else than excellent (officially). That would be the last time they got that marketing deal.
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
I don't see a problem with the way that BF3 implements 3D and with it *fulfilling the conditions* of being considered as 3D Vision Ready. Now playing and experiencing it in 3D at least on multiplayer leaves a lot to be desired with this gen of hardware, but I don't find that to be the case on single player. I'm a rare case of a person that plays 3D competitve multiplayer as far as possible, but most people play 3D for the single player experience. What I take to be '3D Vision Ready' is as Grestorn stated, it was designed with 3D Vision in mind and has no graphical rendering problems or anomalies whatsoever with two images. So let's take a test case, let's say you want to run Metro 2033 with an 8800GT in DX10 High Quality and you iterate that you have a poor 3D experience and poor performance. What exactly changes about Metro's 3D rating when you upgrade from an 8800GT to a GTX 580? Did Metro change or did your ability to run it change? Now you might suggest that that is an unfair comparison as I'm alluding to hardware that isn't on the market yet, but the underpinnings of the argument are still untouched. That's just the nature of the PC platform, which is an aggressively progressive platform as far as technology. What would you take to be the staying power of Battlefield 3 and the Frostbite 2 engine? What's the gap between BF2 and BF3? How many spin-offs will we see on this engine (e.g. a Bad Company 3?)? This engine and its 3D capability will become very relevant as we see more hardware iterations in the future from Nvidia. Am I a little disappointed that I can't run BF3 in Ultra in Multiplayer on Nvidia's flagship setup (GTX 590 Quad SLI)? Sure, but the flip side of that is that I like what I see, and I like the technology that I see DICE progressing with on the PC. What does it mean when a software starts outstripping it's contemporary hardware platform? It means we have an emphasis back towards PC again by a developer. Some people don't like that as it means sucking more out of your wallet to keep up (and that is certainly true), but this is my hobby and what I like to do and I like the progress. A PC is an RPG machine itself. The PC community often complains about console ports, but console ports have the nice ring of allowing a wide range of hardware to run the game with relative ease, with the flip side of that being usually a 'dumbed down' game from the view-point of PC standards. It's those 'PC Standards' that we demand from developers which then produces offerings like Crysis and Battlefield 3. Yeah it can be quite rough at the beginning (my 8800 GTX SLIs took a beating when Crysis came out), but let's not cut our own throats for what we gain in the long run. The Frostbite 2 engine is a damn good engine and I welcome it with open arms.
Furthermore, I would not discount Nvidia's or Dice's ability to have 3D optomized on the current hardware gen either with a driver or a patch.
I don't see a problem with the way that BF3 implements 3D and with it *fulfilling the conditions* of being considered as 3D Vision Ready. Now playing and experiencing it in 3D at least on multiplayer leaves a lot to be desired with this gen of hardware, but I don't find that to be the case on single player. I'm a rare case of a person that plays 3D competitve multiplayer as far as possible, but most people play 3D for the single player experience. What I take to be '3D Vision Ready' is as Grestorn stated, it was designed with 3D Vision in mind and has no graphical rendering problems or anomalies whatsoever with two images. So let's take a test case, let's say you want to run Metro 2033 with an 8800GT in DX10 High Quality and you iterate that you have a poor 3D experience and poor performance. What exactly changes about Metro's 3D rating when you upgrade from an 8800GT to a GTX 580? Did Metro change or did your ability to run it change? Now you might suggest that that is an unfair comparison as I'm alluding to hardware that isn't on the market yet, but the underpinnings of the argument are still untouched. That's just the nature of the PC platform, which is an aggressively progressive platform as far as technology. What would you take to be the staying power of Battlefield 3 and the Frostbite 2 engine? What's the gap between BF2 and BF3? How many spin-offs will we see on this engine (e.g. a Bad Company 3?)? This engine and its 3D capability will become very relevant as we see more hardware iterations in the future from Nvidia. Am I a little disappointed that I can't run BF3 in Ultra in Multiplayer on Nvidia's flagship setup (GTX 590 Quad SLI)? Sure, but the flip side of that is that I like what I see, and I like the technology that I see DICE progressing with on the PC. What does it mean when a software starts outstripping it's contemporary hardware platform? It means we have an emphasis back towards PC again by a developer. Some people don't like that as it means sucking more out of your wallet to keep up (and that is certainly true), but this is my hobby and what I like to do and I like the progress. A PC is an RPG machine itself. The PC community often complains about console ports, but console ports have the nice ring of allowing a wide range of hardware to run the game with relative ease, with the flip side of that being usually a 'dumbed down' game from the view-point of PC standards. It's those 'PC Standards' that we demand from developers which then produces offerings like Crysis and Battlefield 3. Yeah it can be quite rough at the beginning (my 8800 GTX SLIs took a beating when Crysis came out), but let's not cut our own throats for what we gain in the long run. The Frostbite 2 engine is a damn good engine and I welcome it with open arms.
Furthermore, I would not discount Nvidia's or Dice's ability to have 3D optomized on the current hardware gen either with a driver or a patch.
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
Re.bf3
no feedback yet from nvidia about a fix this dosnt look good does it, I even tried 800x600 res on single screen with everything on low and still no good terrible performance, am now running on the latest beta driver but no change, I'm really starting to think I wasted my dosh on bf3
I7 2600. @ 4.6ghz
16gb ram
2x gtx580's 3gb versions ( running cool&stable on 940mhz core clock )
3x acer 27" 3d monitors
Duel power supply
All watercooled
Re.bf3
no feedback yet from nvidia about a fix this dosnt look good does it, I even tried 800x600 res on single screen with everything on low and still no good terrible performance, am now running on the latest beta driver but no change, I'm really starting to think I wasted my dosh on bf3
I7 2600. @ 4.6ghz
16gb ram
2x gtx580's 3gb versions ( running cool&stable on 940mhz core clock )
3x acer 27" 3d monitors
Duel power supply
All watercooled
i7-6700k @ 4.5GHz, 2x 970 GTX SLI, 16GB DDR4 @ 3000mhz, MSI Gaming M7, Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD 512GB, 2x 1TB RAID 1, 850w EVGA, Corsair RGB 90 keyboard
The problem is with 3d vision performance, it cuts fps in half which anything below a 3D fps of 50 is unplayable, turning down settings makes no diference
Is there anyway of putting bf3 into dx10 mode?
If they don't optimise this 3D then no go for me
Cheese man
Yes that correct the crosshair is wrong too, a total mess up hey, total joke
The problem is with 3d vision performance, it cuts fps in half which anything below a 3D fps of 50 is unplayable, turning down settings makes no diference
Is there anyway of putting bf3 into dx10 mode?
If they don't optimise this 3D then no go for me
Cheese man
Yes that correct the crosshair is wrong too, a total mess up hey, total joke
I do not have a crosshair problem. Are you guys playing in multiplayer or single player?
[/quote]
It happens in both SP and MP at max depth. It's not off by much but it [i]is[/i] off a bit, you see double crosshairs if you're aiming at something.
I do not have a crosshair problem. Are you guys playing in multiplayer or single player?
It happens in both SP and MP at max depth. It's not off by much but it is off a bit, you see double crosshairs if you're aiming at something.
i7-6700k @ 4.5GHz, 2x 970 GTX SLI, 16GB DDR4 @ 3000mhz, MSI Gaming M7, Samsung 950 Pro m.2 SSD 512GB, 2x 1TB RAID 1, 850w EVGA, Corsair RGB 90 keyboard
It happens in both SP and MP at max depth. It's not off by much but it [i]is[/i] off a bit, you see double crosshairs if you're aiming at something.
[/quote]
I am not seeing any crosshair problems. Can you please be more specific? Can you take a 3D screenshot showing the problem?
It happens in both SP and MP at max depth. It's not off by much but it is off a bit, you see double crosshairs if you're aiming at something.
I am not seeing any crosshair problems. Can you please be more specific? Can you take a 3D screenshot showing the problem?
I don't think adjusting the convergence is going to fix the in game sight either; it's a value the developers need to adjust as it is not a static but dynamic object.
I REALLY hope they do something about it otherwise it's unplayable.
[/quote]
You would be surprised actually, Convergence can usually fix slightly off-focus objects like crosshair by shifting your point of focus within the scene. For example, with BF3, the problem right now is that convergence is aligned so that the crosshairs themselves are in focus when you look at the crosshairs. Technically, there's nothing wrong with this implementation or its depth, the problem is that you actually want to focus on what's [i]BEHIND[/i] the crosshairs. When you do that, the crosshairs suddenly look like they are misaligned, or at the wrong depth, when they aren't.
There's an easy test you can do to mimic this effect. If you look at a door or something maybe 20 feet away, hold your finger about 6 inches in front of your eyes between you and the door. Focus on your finger, you may have to go slightly cross-eyed, but you can focus and it looks like a single image. Now, focus on the door behind it, suddenly your finger looks like 2 split images correct? Now start pulling your finger away from your face, toward the door while focusing on the door. You will start to see your finger "converge" into a single image. You probably won't be able to extend your arm far enough so that your finger looks like a single image, but if you could extend it another 2-3 feet it would. About 6 feet away and you should be able to focus on a point and the objects behind it without too much trouble.
This is exactly what Convergence can do with 3D Vision, as it shifts your focus point within the scene. So you would want to try and focus on what's behind the crosshairs, then bring convergence back so that the crosshairs line up on top of it. There's other tricks devs can do like change the offsets specifically for crosshairs/ironsights but I'm pretty confident Convergence would fix the crosshair issue in BF3.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='02 December 2011 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1322850930' post='1336547']
It is not 3D Ready based solely on the fact that the crosshair does not render at the correct depth and the NVIDIA crosshair is not a valid workaround since it does not render correctly either in many scenarios. You can't go shooting people in a shooting game when you can't even aim at them...
[/quote]
I don't think its at the wrong depth actually, I just think it needs to be further calibrated. Instead of focusing on the crosshairs, need to focus behind them, then calibrate the crosshairs so they line up. Borderlands is actually very similar, where its default convergence value can lead to misaligned crosshairs. Simply tweaking convergence makes everything perfect from scope crosshairs to ironsights.
I don't think adjusting the convergence is going to fix the in game sight either; it's a value the developers need to adjust as it is not a static but dynamic object.
I REALLY hope they do something about it otherwise it's unplayable.
You would be surprised actually, Convergence can usually fix slightly off-focus objects like crosshair by shifting your point of focus within the scene. For example, with BF3, the problem right now is that convergence is aligned so that the crosshairs themselves are in focus when you look at the crosshairs. Technically, there's nothing wrong with this implementation or its depth, the problem is that you actually want to focus on what's BEHIND the crosshairs. When you do that, the crosshairs suddenly look like they are misaligned, or at the wrong depth, when they aren't.
There's an easy test you can do to mimic this effect. If you look at a door or something maybe 20 feet away, hold your finger about 6 inches in front of your eyes between you and the door. Focus on your finger, you may have to go slightly cross-eyed, but you can focus and it looks like a single image. Now, focus on the door behind it, suddenly your finger looks like 2 split images correct? Now start pulling your finger away from your face, toward the door while focusing on the door. You will start to see your finger "converge" into a single image. You probably won't be able to extend your arm far enough so that your finger looks like a single image, but if you could extend it another 2-3 feet it would. About 6 feet away and you should be able to focus on a point and the objects behind it without too much trouble.
This is exactly what Convergence can do with 3D Vision, as it shifts your focus point within the scene. So you would want to try and focus on what's behind the crosshairs, then bring convergence back so that the crosshairs line up on top of it. There's other tricks devs can do like change the offsets specifically for crosshairs/ironsights but I'm pretty confident Convergence would fix the crosshair issue in BF3.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='02 December 2011 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1322850930' post='1336547']
It is not 3D Ready based solely on the fact that the crosshair does not render at the correct depth and the NVIDIA crosshair is not a valid workaround since it does not render correctly either in many scenarios. You can't go shooting people in a shooting game when you can't even aim at them...
I don't think its at the wrong depth actually, I just think it needs to be further calibrated. Instead of focusing on the crosshairs, need to focus behind them, then calibrate the crosshairs so they line up. Borderlands is actually very similar, where its default convergence value can lead to misaligned crosshairs. Simply tweaking convergence makes everything perfect from scope crosshairs to ironsights.
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W
Bet your tired of the moaning etc,
Do you know of any plans to fix the 3d vision performance issues ( gtx580's )
( even if I try on single screen 3d still no good )
Bet your tired of the moaning etc,
Do you know of any plans to fix the 3d vision performance issues ( gtx580's )
( even if I try on single screen 3d still no good )
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
[/quote]
OK, but the problem is you are injecting your criteria and perception of what the 3D rating system should be instead of taking Nvidia's rating system for what it is and acknowledging its faults. Its pretty obvious you and most others here, including myself, value the quality of the 3D images higher than peripheral considerations that may or may not be rendered in 3D. In order to achieve a quality 3D effect, Convergence is often integral so we value control over it higher than maybe HUD elements or even nameplates/icons. Its clear that Nvidia and their dev partners do not place as much emphasis there, but instead rewards the effort of the devs if they render all major game assets, cursors, crosshairs, graphic settings and effects in stereo and 3D Vision users are able to enable 3D without any significant user-intervention. If you look back on their ratings for 3D Vision games, they are remarkably consistent in that regard.
Basically, take the 3D Vision Ready (and all the ratings really) with a grain of salt and use them as a general guideline only. I rate my games in 3D Vision using my own criteria and it certainly doesn't agree with Nvidia's rating system. There's other rating programs out there like GG3D that allow you to do similar, the more feedback from multiple sources, the better idea we'll get of a game's impression on its audience in 3D without relying on a single source (Nvidia).
[quote name='rustyk' date='02 December 2011 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1322843940' post='1336507']
Interesting discussion!
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
[/quote]
Yes exactly, that's generally all I've expected from 3D Vision Ready titles, no glaring artifacts or potentially game-breaking issues (like 2D mouse cursor/crosshairs), and there's plenty of 3D Vision Ready games I rate lower than "Excellent" or even "Not Rated" titles due to locked convergence. Still, I wouldn't have any problem recommending any 3D Vision Ready title to a 3D neophyte because I could say with reasonable certainty that they would get a good 3D experience with very little frustration or problems.
Agreed - it's not just that "3D Vision Ready" is one of the categories, it's that "3D Vision Ready" corresponds to five stars, "Excellent" corresponds to four stars, and so on; how else is that to be interpreted other than that a "3D Vision Ready" game is even better than excellent?
The problem is that NVIDIA is exchanging a short-term gain here (not upsetting DICE with a suitable but lower rating) for a long-term loss of trust in the integrity of their rating system. Any rating system (and especially a proprietary one by NVIDIA) is worth only as much as the trust consumers place in that rating, and I for one don't see how I can now trust a game that is rated with 5/5 stars by NVIDIA to deliver a perfect experience - I guess next time I'll have to wait for reactions on the forums, which unfortunately all too often are heavily biased as well...
OK, but the problem is you are injecting your criteria and perception of what the 3D rating system should be instead of taking Nvidia's rating system for what it is and acknowledging its faults. Its pretty obvious you and most others here, including myself, value the quality of the 3D images higher than peripheral considerations that may or may not be rendered in 3D. In order to achieve a quality 3D effect, Convergence is often integral so we value control over it higher than maybe HUD elements or even nameplates/icons. Its clear that Nvidia and their dev partners do not place as much emphasis there, but instead rewards the effort of the devs if they render all major game assets, cursors, crosshairs, graphic settings and effects in stereo and 3D Vision users are able to enable 3D without any significant user-intervention. If you look back on their ratings for 3D Vision games, they are remarkably consistent in that regard.
Basically, take the 3D Vision Ready (and all the ratings really) with a grain of salt and use them as a general guideline only. I rate my games in 3D Vision using my own criteria and it certainly doesn't agree with Nvidia's rating system. There's other rating programs out there like GG3D that allow you to do similar, the more feedback from multiple sources, the better idea we'll get of a game's impression on its audience in 3D without relying on a single source (Nvidia).
[quote name='rustyk' date='02 December 2011 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1322843940' post='1336507']
Interesting discussion!
If I can just chip in with my opinion, I always took '3D Ready' to simply mean that you don't have to turn any effects, details or post-processing off because everything that's rendered in the game 'works' in 3d.
That's all it ever really meant to me. Obviously performance and adjustability of convergence impact the user experience, but in the case of performance hopefully future patches and or driver revisions can help.
Yes exactly, that's generally all I've expected from 3D Vision Ready titles, no glaring artifacts or potentially game-breaking issues (like 2D mouse cursor/crosshairs), and there's plenty of 3D Vision Ready games I rate lower than "Excellent" or even "Not Rated" titles due to locked convergence. Still, I wouldn't have any problem recommending any 3D Vision Ready title to a 3D neophyte because I could say with reasonable certainty that they would get a good 3D experience with very little frustration or problems.
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W
I am not seeing any crosshair problems. Can you please be more specific? Can you take a 3D screenshot showing the problem?
[/quote]
You can see the problem very clearly here Andrew.
1st picture shows minimum depth, I'm aiming at the A/C unit and the holo sight is clearly fixed on a single point.
2nd picture is same thing, max depth, but when you focus on the A/C unit the holo sight breaks up into 2 images. Can't make any headshots like that. This is why we need convergence control, so we can focus on objects behind the crosshairs and bring them back to focus with convergence controls.
I am not seeing any crosshair problems. Can you please be more specific? Can you take a 3D screenshot showing the problem?
You can see the problem very clearly here Andrew.
1st picture shows minimum depth, I'm aiming at the A/C unit and the holo sight is clearly fixed on a single point.
2nd picture is same thing, max depth, but when you focus on the A/C unit the holo sight breaks up into 2 images. Can't make any headshots like that. This is why we need convergence control, so we can focus on objects behind the crosshairs and bring them back to focus with convergence controls.
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W