Battlefield 3 3DVision Benchmarks
  28 / 43    
Hello all,

Interesting discussions here, and just to add my 2 cents - I do agree with the opinion that a "3D Vision Ready" game should have unlocked (and preferably in-game, adjustable settings) for convergence. I have experimented with the GstRender.StereoConvergence setting in the PROF_SAVE_profile but it does not seem to have any noticeable effect. I assume this is due to the apparently hard-coded "lock" on convergence?

However, I would also like to introduce another issue that I've experienced, and for which I have been unable to find any useful info after a couple hours of Googling:

I've noticed that there seems to be some sort of issue with transparent textures which results in an extremely distracting, almost shimmering-like effect from objects that use them (chain-link fences, some metal towers/poles, trees, etc). My framerate performance is fine, and the other issues discussed here I can live with for now (though I would like to see improvements in a future patch) but this one issue is kind of ruining it for me just because it is so irritatingly noticeable and distracting during actual gameplay. It doesn't happen if the object are in a fairly close shallow-depth field of view, but does for anything further away than that. I don't know if maybe they're just not rendering properly for 3D or something?

Has anyone else experienced this, or heard of anything similar? I just haven't been able to figure it out, and have tried changing all of my in-game video settings individually to try to resolve it but have had no luck. I'm not even 100% sure it's a transparent texture problem, but as it only seems to affect the objects I listed above that is my hypothesis after troubleshooting thus far. If anyone has any ideas please let me know.

Oh, and some details:

2x 560Ti SLI
Latest beta drivers (290.36)
Asus VG278H (1920x1080)

My normal game settings (though I've tried changing them all):
- Textures and Shadows on High, everything else Ultra
- AA Deferred Off
- AA Post High
- Motion Blur Off (just because I don't personally like it)
- AF x16
- HBAO
Hello all,



Interesting discussions here, and just to add my 2 cents - I do agree with the opinion that a "3D Vision Ready" game should have unlocked (and preferably in-game, adjustable settings) for convergence. I have experimented with the GstRender.StereoConvergence setting in the PROF_SAVE_profile but it does not seem to have any noticeable effect. I assume this is due to the apparently hard-coded "lock" on convergence?



However, I would also like to introduce another issue that I've experienced, and for which I have been unable to find any useful info after a couple hours of Googling:



I've noticed that there seems to be some sort of issue with transparent textures which results in an extremely distracting, almost shimmering-like effect from objects that use them (chain-link fences, some metal towers/poles, trees, etc). My framerate performance is fine, and the other issues discussed here I can live with for now (though I would like to see improvements in a future patch) but this one issue is kind of ruining it for me just because it is so irritatingly noticeable and distracting during actual gameplay. It doesn't happen if the object are in a fairly close shallow-depth field of view, but does for anything further away than that. I don't know if maybe they're just not rendering properly for 3D or something?



Has anyone else experienced this, or heard of anything similar? I just haven't been able to figure it out, and have tried changing all of my in-game video settings individually to try to resolve it but have had no luck. I'm not even 100% sure it's a transparent texture problem, but as it only seems to affect the objects I listed above that is my hypothesis after troubleshooting thus far. If anyone has any ideas please let me know.



Oh, and some details:



2x 560Ti SLI

Latest beta drivers (290.36)

Asus VG278H (1920x1080)



My normal game settings (though I've tried changing them all):

- Textures and Shadows on High, everything else Ultra

- AA Deferred Off

- AA Post High

- Motion Blur Off (just because I don't personally like it)

- AF x16

- HBAO

Posted 12/03/2011 05:54 AM   
[quote name='chiz' date='02 December 2011 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1322877618' post='1336742']
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]

That's it! That's exactly what I was talking about.
[quote name='chiz' date='02 December 2011 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1322877618' post='1336742']

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.





That's it! That's exactly what I was talking about.

Posted 12/03/2011 08:38 AM   
[quote name='chiz' date='03 December 2011 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1322877618' post='1336742']
Can't make any headshots like that. This is why we need convergence control[/quote]
convergence control won't change the fact that the iron sight is at a different depth than the target.
of course, you could decrease convergence until everything has the same parallax but then you would essentially get a 2d image (far) behind your screen.

the weapon/scope should act like a lasersight. bfbc2 is the only game where the ADS mode renders correctly in stereo.
[quote name='chiz' date='03 December 2011 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1322877618' post='1336742']

Can't make any headshots like that. This is why we need convergence control

convergence control won't change the fact that the iron sight is at a different depth than the target.

of course, you could decrease convergence until everything has the same parallax but then you would essentially get a 2d image (far) behind your screen.



the weapon/scope should act like a lasersight. bfbc2 is the only game where the ADS mode renders correctly in stereo.

NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal), Intel Core i7-6900K, Win 10 Pro,
ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10, G.Skill RipJaws V 4x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34,
ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q, ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, Acer Predator XB280HK, BenQ W710ST

Posted 12/03/2011 09:21 AM   
I think convergence control would help tonnes. I always remove crosshair and play using weapon sights. You do sometimes have to push convergence out to sort out the sights. However it is a fine line. Some games require you to push it out to far lessening the depth effect. I often reach a compromise where the doubling is minimised enough to not serious effect head shots.

THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE TO LOCK CONVERGENCE - EVER! DRM treats law abiding gamers as criminals; locking convergence treats us like morons.
I think convergence control would help tonnes. I always remove crosshair and play using weapon sights. You do sometimes have to push convergence out to sort out the sights. However it is a fine line. Some games require you to push it out to far lessening the depth effect. I often reach a compromise where the doubling is minimised enough to not serious effect head shots.



THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE TO LOCK CONVERGENCE - EVER! DRM treats law abiding gamers as criminals; locking convergence treats us like morons.

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

Posted 12/03/2011 10:27 AM   
[quote name='Kingping' date='03 December 2011 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1322904088' post='1336865']
convergence control won't change the fact that the iron sight is at a different depth than the target.
of course, you could decrease convergence until everything has the same parallax but then you would essentially get a 2d image (far) behind your screen.

the weapon/scope should act like a lasersight. bfbc2 is the only game where the ADS mode renders correctly in stereo.
[/quote]

I think you're right about that. The iron sights in this game are not like a simple 2D object; they move dynamically based on the object they are hitting. The sights have a set value of where they will appear over the object. If you adjust the convergence the set value of the iron sights will still remain.

It's like playing ANY OTHER 3D game with a 3D crosshair; Just Cause 2, Bad Company 2, Half-Life 2 any game with a 3D crosshair; you can adjust the convergence but the sight will still display correctly. That is because it is a DYNAMIC object.

You play something like The Witcher 1, which does not have a 3D crosshair, and you can adjust the convergence to make the games 2D crosshair appear in the screen therefore making it easier to aim at things. This will not happen with Battlefield 3 because it has a dynamic crosshair and dynamic iron sights.

I think convergence should be unlocked for whatever reason you want it to be unlocked, personally I don't think a first person game should have convergence, or at the least a very small amount, but it is your game and you are all free to do with it as you wish. That's one of the reasons personal computers are so great.

All that needs to happen to fix the iron sights is to adjust the numeric value so they display deeper into the screen. At a low depth setting the issue is not very noticeable, however at a high setting is becomes game breaking. I assume the person who worked on this games 3D was not testing the sights with a high depth and did not see the displacement of the iron sight.
[quote name='Kingping' date='03 December 2011 - 03:21 AM' timestamp='1322904088' post='1336865']

convergence control won't change the fact that the iron sight is at a different depth than the target.

of course, you could decrease convergence until everything has the same parallax but then you would essentially get a 2d image (far) behind your screen.



the weapon/scope should act like a lasersight. bfbc2 is the only game where the ADS mode renders correctly in stereo.





I think you're right about that. The iron sights in this game are not like a simple 2D object; they move dynamically based on the object they are hitting. The sights have a set value of where they will appear over the object. If you adjust the convergence the set value of the iron sights will still remain.



It's like playing ANY OTHER 3D game with a 3D crosshair; Just Cause 2, Bad Company 2, Half-Life 2 any game with a 3D crosshair; you can adjust the convergence but the sight will still display correctly. That is because it is a DYNAMIC object.



You play something like The Witcher 1, which does not have a 3D crosshair, and you can adjust the convergence to make the games 2D crosshair appear in the screen therefore making it easier to aim at things. This will not happen with Battlefield 3 because it has a dynamic crosshair and dynamic iron sights.



I think convergence should be unlocked for whatever reason you want it to be unlocked, personally I don't think a first person game should have convergence, or at the least a very small amount, but it is your game and you are all free to do with it as you wish. That's one of the reasons personal computers are so great.



All that needs to happen to fix the iron sights is to adjust the numeric value so they display deeper into the screen. At a low depth setting the issue is not very noticeable, however at a high setting is becomes game breaking. I assume the person who worked on this games 3D was not testing the sights with a high depth and did not see the displacement of the iron sight.

Posted 12/03/2011 11:12 AM   
[quote name='andysonofbob' date='03 December 2011 - 04:27 AM' timestamp='1322908038' post='1336878']
I think convergence control would help tonnes. I always remove crosshair and play using weapon sights. You do sometimes have to push convergence out to sort out the sights. However it is a fine line. Some games require you to push it out to far lessening the depth effect.
[/quote]

Those games have STATIC sights; they do not adjust their depth based on the objects they are pointing at.

Take a look at the sights in Battlefield 3 (or better yet Bad Company 2) and look at the sights with the glasses off. You will notice as you move around while looking through the iron sight that the gun will actually separate or converge based on the object it's pointing at; just like Nvidias 3D crosshair that you can enable and disable.

It's easiest to see this with the depth turned to the maximum setting.
[quote name='andysonofbob' date='03 December 2011 - 04:27 AM' timestamp='1322908038' post='1336878']

I think convergence control would help tonnes. I always remove crosshair and play using weapon sights. You do sometimes have to push convergence out to sort out the sights. However it is a fine line. Some games require you to push it out to far lessening the depth effect.





Those games have STATIC sights; they do not adjust their depth based on the objects they are pointing at.



Take a look at the sights in Battlefield 3 (or better yet Bad Company 2) and look at the sights with the glasses off. You will notice as you move around while looking through the iron sight that the gun will actually separate or converge based on the object it's pointing at; just like Nvidias 3D crosshair that you can enable and disable.



It's easiest to see this with the depth turned to the maximum setting.

Posted 12/03/2011 11:19 AM   
Fair enough...

[quote name='Stange' date='03 December 2011 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1322911197' post='1336889']
It's easiest to see this with the depth turned to the maximum setting.
[/quote]

That's the only way to play!
Fair enough...



[quote name='Stange' date='03 December 2011 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1322911197' post='1336889']

It's easiest to see this with the depth turned to the maximum setting.





That's the only way to play!

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

Posted 12/03/2011 12:48 PM   
[quote name='Kingping' date='03 December 2011 - 04:21 AM' timestamp='1322904088' post='1336865']
convergence control won't change the fact that the iron sight is at a different depth than the target.
of course, you could decrease convergence until everything has the same parallax but then you would essentially get a 2d image (far) behind your screen.

the weapon/scope should act like a lasersight. bfbc2 is the only game where the ADS mode renders correctly in stereo.
[/quote]
No you wouldn't end up with a flat image, you would just need to adjust convergence enough so that the focus point is comfortably behind the ironsights/crosshairs. Its not a perfect solution because it can cause uncomfortable pop-out or start splitting images in the near-field, or worst, break everything when you're not in ADS, but seeing how far off the current ADS is with max depth I think unlocked convergence would fix the problem pretty easily without many issues. The only remaining problem would be how near-field objects are treated. More on this in a sec.

[quote name='Stange' date='03 December 2011 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1322910767' post='1336888']
I think you're right about that. The iron sights in this game are not like a simple 2D object; they move dynamically based on the object they are hitting. The sights have a set value of where they will appear over the object. If you adjust the convergence the set value of the iron sights will still remain.

It's like playing ANY OTHER 3D game with a 3D crosshair; Just Cause 2, Bad Company 2, Half-Life 2 any game with a 3D crosshair; you can adjust the convergence but the sight will still display correctly. That is because it is a DYNAMIC object.

You play something like The Witcher 1, which does not have a 3D crosshair, and you can adjust the convergence to make the games 2D crosshair appear in the screen therefore making it easier to aim at things. This will not happen with Battlefield 3 because it has a dynamic crosshair and dynamic iron sights.

I think convergence should be unlocked for whatever reason you want it to be unlocked, personally I don't think a first person game should have convergence, or at the least a very small amount, but it is your game and you are all free to do with it as you wish. That's one of the reasons personal computers are so great.

All that needs to happen to fix the iron sights is to adjust the numeric value so they display deeper into the screen. At a low depth setting the issue is not very noticeable, however at a high setting is becomes game breaking. I assume the person who worked on this games 3D was not testing the sights with a high depth and did not see the displacement of the iron sight.
[/quote]
I just double-checked and while BFBC2 does have dynamic crosshairs, BF3 (with Holo at least) does not. That's certainly part of the problem but even dynamic crosshair in BF3 wouldn't fix the crosshair problem because distant objects are out of focus, near-field objects are not. We need to tweak the convergence/focus point for distant objects behind the crosshairs, then enable a dynamic crosshair for closer targets. This is more how Nvidia's 3D sight works.

I also double-checked Borderlands and its treatment of crosshairs/ironsights is somewhere in the middle of both solutions. With Borderlands, when you are scoped, the dynamic crosshairs only adjust for near-field objects. Objects and targets in the distance are comfortably aligned behind the scope so no adjustment is needed.

However, with both Borderlands and BFBC2 even with their working sights in 3D, it is possible to "break" their focus by simply adjusting Convergence. I believe the same controls can be applied to BF3 to "unbreak" the sights in BF3 because the focus is clearly too close on the crosshairs themselves. Pushing focus further into the scene may still leave some issues with close targets between the camera (you) and the new focus point of the crosshairs/sights, but I think that would be the lesser of the two evils in this case. Ideally yes, DICE goes back and applies a dynamic crosshair to all their sights, but until then I think I would be perfectly happy with convergence controls.

Here's some pics that help illustrate what I'm talking about. You can see even with dynamic crosshair for both games, you can easily change the focus point in the scene to break or unbreak the functionality of crosshairs at a given depth. I've changed nothing in these scenes other than Convergence, both screens are taken with max depth on the wheel. In the "focused" pics you can focus on the circular objects (head, foglamp) and the crosshairs align and are in focus. In the "broken" pics, focusing on the circular distant objects results in a double-image of the crosshairs. But you can focus on the crosshairs themselves, by going slightly cross-eyed, but in doing so the circular images in the distance split. This is the same problem as we see with BF3.
[quote name='Kingping' date='03 December 2011 - 04:21 AM' timestamp='1322904088' post='1336865']

convergence control won't change the fact that the iron sight is at a different depth than the target.

of course, you could decrease convergence until everything has the same parallax but then you would essentially get a 2d image (far) behind your screen.



the weapon/scope should act like a lasersight. bfbc2 is the only game where the ADS mode renders correctly in stereo.



No you wouldn't end up with a flat image, you would just need to adjust convergence enough so that the focus point is comfortably behind the ironsights/crosshairs. Its not a perfect solution because it can cause uncomfortable pop-out or start splitting images in the near-field, or worst, break everything when you're not in ADS, but seeing how far off the current ADS is with max depth I think unlocked convergence would fix the problem pretty easily without many issues. The only remaining problem would be how near-field objects are treated. More on this in a sec.



[quote name='Stange' date='03 December 2011 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1322910767' post='1336888']

I think you're right about that. The iron sights in this game are not like a simple 2D object; they move dynamically based on the object they are hitting. The sights have a set value of where they will appear over the object. If you adjust the convergence the set value of the iron sights will still remain.



It's like playing ANY OTHER 3D game with a 3D crosshair; Just Cause 2, Bad Company 2, Half-Life 2 any game with a 3D crosshair; you can adjust the convergence but the sight will still display correctly. That is because it is a DYNAMIC object.



You play something like The Witcher 1, which does not have a 3D crosshair, and you can adjust the convergence to make the games 2D crosshair appear in the screen therefore making it easier to aim at things. This will not happen with Battlefield 3 because it has a dynamic crosshair and dynamic iron sights.



I think convergence should be unlocked for whatever reason you want it to be unlocked, personally I don't think a first person game should have convergence, or at the least a very small amount, but it is your game and you are all free to do with it as you wish. That's one of the reasons personal computers are so great.



All that needs to happen to fix the iron sights is to adjust the numeric value so they display deeper into the screen. At a low depth setting the issue is not very noticeable, however at a high setting is becomes game breaking. I assume the person who worked on this games 3D was not testing the sights with a high depth and did not see the displacement of the iron sight.



I just double-checked and while BFBC2 does have dynamic crosshairs, BF3 (with Holo at least) does not. That's certainly part of the problem but even dynamic crosshair in BF3 wouldn't fix the crosshair problem because distant objects are out of focus, near-field objects are not. We need to tweak the convergence/focus point for distant objects behind the crosshairs, then enable a dynamic crosshair for closer targets. This is more how Nvidia's 3D sight works.



I also double-checked Borderlands and its treatment of crosshairs/ironsights is somewhere in the middle of both solutions. With Borderlands, when you are scoped, the dynamic crosshairs only adjust for near-field objects. Objects and targets in the distance are comfortably aligned behind the scope so no adjustment is needed.



However, with both Borderlands and BFBC2 even with their working sights in 3D, it is possible to "break" their focus by simply adjusting Convergence. I believe the same controls can be applied to BF3 to "unbreak" the sights in BF3 because the focus is clearly too close on the crosshairs themselves. Pushing focus further into the scene may still leave some issues with close targets between the camera (you) and the new focus point of the crosshairs/sights, but I think that would be the lesser of the two evils in this case. Ideally yes, DICE goes back and applies a dynamic crosshair to all their sights, but until then I think I would be perfectly happy with convergence controls.



Here's some pics that help illustrate what I'm talking about. You can see even with dynamic crosshair for both games, you can easily change the focus point in the scene to break or unbreak the functionality of crosshairs at a given depth. I've changed nothing in these scenes other than Convergence, both screens are taken with max depth on the wheel. In the "focused" pics you can focus on the circular objects (head, foglamp) and the crosshairs align and are in focus. In the "broken" pics, focusing on the circular distant objects results in a double-image of the crosshairs. But you can focus on the crosshairs themselves, by going slightly cross-eyed, but in doing so the circular images in the distance split. This is the same problem as we see with BF3.

-=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

Posted 12/03/2011 05:19 PM   
Start: regedit.exe

Go to: Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D

Set: "StereoVisionConfirmed" to a "0" value (should be "1" as default)

Start: BF3

Convergence should be unlocked. Shadows should be at the wrong depth and the sky should be at screen depth.

Disabling this registry entry surrenders the 3D rendering to NVidia rather than BF3, I think. Maybe we can find remedies for these 3D rendering errors through modifications now.
Start: regedit.exe



Go to: Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D



Set: "StereoVisionConfirmed" to a "0" value (should be "1" as default)



Start: BF3



Convergence should be unlocked. Shadows should be at the wrong depth and the sky should be at screen depth.



Disabling this registry entry surrenders the 3D rendering to NVidia rather than BF3, I think. Maybe we can find remedies for these 3D rendering errors through modifications now.

Posted 12/03/2011 08:04 PM   
i5 2500k @ 4.7 GHz, dual 570 GTXs SLI slightly OC'ed, 8GB ram, ~65% utilization each 570GTX and only 50% utilization on all four CPU cores = [b]30-40 FPS[/b]... there's absolutely performance issues. Switch over to 2D and resource utilization goes up significantly and I get 100-120fps. Setting at Ultra except no deferred AA and only 25% motion blur (personal preference).

[IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/pts121/Temp/poorperformance.png[/IMG]
i5 2500k @ 4.7 GHz, dual 570 GTXs SLI slightly OC'ed, 8GB ram, ~65% utilization each 570GTX and only 50% utilization on all four CPU cores = 30-40 FPS... there's absolutely performance issues. Switch over to 2D and resource utilization goes up significantly and I get 100-120fps. Setting at Ultra except no deferred AA and only 25% motion blur (personal preference).



Image

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

Posted 12/03/2011 10:09 PM   
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='03 December 2011 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1322950166' post='1337155']
i5 2500k @ 4.7 GHz, dual 570 GTXs SLI slightly OC'ed, 8GB ram, ~65% utilization each 570GTX and only 50% utilization on all four CPU cores = [b]30-40 FPS[/b]... there's absolutely performance issues. Switch over to 2D and resource utilization goes up significantly and I get 100-120fps. Setting at Ultra except no deferred AA and only 25% motion blur (personal preference).

[IMG]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/pts121/Temp/poorperformance.png[/IMG]
[/quote]


Told ya Chiz, there is definately a performance issue with this game when running in 3d.

BTW, just upgraded to the x79 platform, CPU stable at 4.8ghz, AND still perf issues with bf3 in 3d.

Not my hardware Chiz.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='03 December 2011 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1322950166' post='1337155']

i5 2500k @ 4.7 GHz, dual 570 GTXs SLI slightly OC'ed, 8GB ram, ~65% utilization each 570GTX and only 50% utilization on all four CPU cores = 30-40 FPS... there's absolutely performance issues. Switch over to 2D and resource utilization goes up significantly and I get 100-120fps. Setting at Ultra except no deferred AA and only 25% motion blur (personal preference).



Image







Told ya Chiz, there is definately a performance issue with this game when running in 3d.



BTW, just upgraded to the x79 platform, CPU stable at 4.8ghz, AND still perf issues with bf3 in 3d.



Not my hardware Chiz.

Posted 12/04/2011 01:35 AM   
It's quite interesting to hear everyone's opinions on here. I believe that the purpose of this forum should be threefold:

1. To provide gamers who have already bought the necessary equipment and any certain game with feedback on how to fix common problems that may occur.

2. To provide interested potential gamers who are considering the investment into 3D Vision hardware and compatible games with feedback from the point of view of consumers who have already made those purchases and are willing to take the time to share their experiences.

3. To provide a communication channel between NVIDIA and its consumers concerning our wishes and thoughts to make an arguably already pretty good experience even better.

To each of these three groups, here's my take - I'm of course only a single individual with my own subjective opinion, so the more you guys on here keep adding your own subjective view points, the better for everyone involved!

1. To people considering buying Battlefield 3 because of it's 3D Vision compatibility: The overall experience is by no means bad, and the 3D experience is very solid with regards to image quality, in the sense that there are no obvious artifacts or elements rendering at completely the wrong depth, although some people are experiencing problems with the crosshairs and/or gunsights. However, the experience is far from the best 3D experiences available, for several reasons that include locked convergence (something that takes away from the overall experience considerably for many people, including myself) as well as strong performance problems that go far beyond the loss in FPS that is to be expected from stereo rendering. For these reasons, realize that the choice to rate this game as "3D Vision Ready" with five out of five stars is a pure marketing move by NVIDIA and does not represent the opinion of the vast majority of gamers who have tried it. You may well argue that everyone will have a different opinion on the quality of experience delivered by any given game and all ratings are subjective to a certain degree, but there are some games where the overall opinion is very strongly positive with very few complaints (again, take Skyrim as an example). This is not one of those games, and it's at the very least unfortunate that NVIDIA's own rating system seems to be influenced by marketing decisions and hence sometimes does not correlate well with the opinions held by the majority of gamers. This is of course NVIDIA's own choice, and it's true that they do not guarantee any objective or statistical criteria with their own rating decisions, but likewise they must be willing to then face some backlash from consumers unhappy with this. I spent $600 on a GTX 580 and BF3 and am not getting the experience that marketing suggested I would be getting, and hence I feel that this is the place for me to express my - admittedly subjective - unhappiness about this, as well as to inform others that are considering the same purchasing decision about these problems.

2. To the gamers looking for help with the problems: there seems to be no way yet of fixing the performance issues, which unfortunately seem most prevalent on NVIDIA's flagship GPUs (GTX 580 and 590), and also no way of unlocking convergence without disabling the native stereo implementation, which in turn causes other rendering problems to pop up. Unless NVIDIA or DICE provide us with further updates, it seems unlikely that the problems will be solved.

3. To NVIDIA - Andrew, as the dedicated contact person I'm addressing this to you directly: please look into these problems further and keep us updated on what to expect concerning problem fixes. Your support and feedback is much appreciated, and as much as we like to complain on here, we are aware that the direct consumer communication you provide us with is by no means guaranteed by most technology companies.

That being said, please also bring to the attention of both NVIDIA and the game developers you are working with that locking convergence is a very suboptimal choice that benefits no one and causes a lot of frustration. Getting the correct convergence is integral to the 3D experience for most of us gamers, and convergence is such a subjective choice that this is by no means a "one size fits all" type of situation. I completely fail to understand how removing an option could ever be superior to providing a default setting that is adjustable but perhaps even comes with a warning label so that only advanced users would consider changing it.

A big part of what makes the PC platform so great is the fact that anything is user-adjustable if one should wish to do so, and just locking such an important setting is short-sighted, patronizing and detrimental to the overall experience. Considering the substantial cost of the hardware required, it's safe to assume that most users of a (still relatively niche) technology like 3D Vision are experienced enough to handle a couple of basic adjustable options, so please encourage developers to stop with this practice of locking convergence.

If you truly wish to further push 3D Vision as the superior platform in the 3D gaming market (considering the limited availability of 3D-compatible games and the limited processing power of current-generation consoles as well as the numerous problems AMD's HD3D as well as DDD's TriDef are still facing - and not to mention the premium pricing of associated NVIDIA hardware, it's safe to assume that's what NVIDIA would want to do), here's my suggestion that I believe most consumers would agree with: encourage developers to provide a high-performance, fully adjustable 3D experience from launch, focussing especially on the blockbuster titles gamers are most looking forward to, establish the "3D Vision Ready" seal of approval as a trusted sign of a 3D gaming experience that you can then also leverage as a carrot and stick type incentive for developers and be swift in your response to any problems that may arise. Don't just point fingers at developers - NVIDIA is marketing 3D Vision and using it as a platform to sell their hardware (as well as proprietary software such as the 3DTV Play utility), so please do stand up for your loyal customers that have placed their trust (and their hard-earned money) in your technology and act on their behalf and in their interest.

3D gaming can be such an incredible and immersive experience when done right, and I'm hopeful that these minor kinks can be worked out fairly easily if only NVIDIA are willing to take to heart the wishes of their loyal consumer base.
It's quite interesting to hear everyone's opinions on here. I believe that the purpose of this forum should be threefold:



1. To provide gamers who have already bought the necessary equipment and any certain game with feedback on how to fix common problems that may occur.



2. To provide interested potential gamers who are considering the investment into 3D Vision hardware and compatible games with feedback from the point of view of consumers who have already made those purchases and are willing to take the time to share their experiences.



3. To provide a communication channel between NVIDIA and its consumers concerning our wishes and thoughts to make an arguably already pretty good experience even better.



To each of these three groups, here's my take - I'm of course only a single individual with my own subjective opinion, so the more you guys on here keep adding your own subjective view points, the better for everyone involved!



1. To people considering buying Battlefield 3 because of it's 3D Vision compatibility: The overall experience is by no means bad, and the 3D experience is very solid with regards to image quality, in the sense that there are no obvious artifacts or elements rendering at completely the wrong depth, although some people are experiencing problems with the crosshairs and/or gunsights. However, the experience is far from the best 3D experiences available, for several reasons that include locked convergence (something that takes away from the overall experience considerably for many people, including myself) as well as strong performance problems that go far beyond the loss in FPS that is to be expected from stereo rendering. For these reasons, realize that the choice to rate this game as "3D Vision Ready" with five out of five stars is a pure marketing move by NVIDIA and does not represent the opinion of the vast majority of gamers who have tried it. You may well argue that everyone will have a different opinion on the quality of experience delivered by any given game and all ratings are subjective to a certain degree, but there are some games where the overall opinion is very strongly positive with very few complaints (again, take Skyrim as an example). This is not one of those games, and it's at the very least unfortunate that NVIDIA's own rating system seems to be influenced by marketing decisions and hence sometimes does not correlate well with the opinions held by the majority of gamers. This is of course NVIDIA's own choice, and it's true that they do not guarantee any objective or statistical criteria with their own rating decisions, but likewise they must be willing to then face some backlash from consumers unhappy with this. I spent $600 on a GTX 580 and BF3 and am not getting the experience that marketing suggested I would be getting, and hence I feel that this is the place for me to express my - admittedly subjective - unhappiness about this, as well as to inform others that are considering the same purchasing decision about these problems.



2. To the gamers looking for help with the problems: there seems to be no way yet of fixing the performance issues, which unfortunately seem most prevalent on NVIDIA's flagship GPUs (GTX 580 and 590), and also no way of unlocking convergence without disabling the native stereo implementation, which in turn causes other rendering problems to pop up. Unless NVIDIA or DICE provide us with further updates, it seems unlikely that the problems will be solved.



3. To NVIDIA - Andrew, as the dedicated contact person I'm addressing this to you directly: please look into these problems further and keep us updated on what to expect concerning problem fixes. Your support and feedback is much appreciated, and as much as we like to complain on here, we are aware that the direct consumer communication you provide us with is by no means guaranteed by most technology companies.



That being said, please also bring to the attention of both NVIDIA and the game developers you are working with that locking convergence is a very suboptimal choice that benefits no one and causes a lot of frustration. Getting the correct convergence is integral to the 3D experience for most of us gamers, and convergence is such a subjective choice that this is by no means a "one size fits all" type of situation. I completely fail to understand how removing an option could ever be superior to providing a default setting that is adjustable but perhaps even comes with a warning label so that only advanced users would consider changing it.



A big part of what makes the PC platform so great is the fact that anything is user-adjustable if one should wish to do so, and just locking such an important setting is short-sighted, patronizing and detrimental to the overall experience. Considering the substantial cost of the hardware required, it's safe to assume that most users of a (still relatively niche) technology like 3D Vision are experienced enough to handle a couple of basic adjustable options, so please encourage developers to stop with this practice of locking convergence.



If you truly wish to further push 3D Vision as the superior platform in the 3D gaming market (considering the limited availability of 3D-compatible games and the limited processing power of current-generation consoles as well as the numerous problems AMD's HD3D as well as DDD's TriDef are still facing - and not to mention the premium pricing of associated NVIDIA hardware, it's safe to assume that's what NVIDIA would want to do), here's my suggestion that I believe most consumers would agree with: encourage developers to provide a high-performance, fully adjustable 3D experience from launch, focussing especially on the blockbuster titles gamers are most looking forward to, establish the "3D Vision Ready" seal of approval as a trusted sign of a 3D gaming experience that you can then also leverage as a carrot and stick type incentive for developers and be swift in your response to any problems that may arise. Don't just point fingers at developers - NVIDIA is marketing 3D Vision and using it as a platform to sell their hardware (as well as proprietary software such as the 3DTV Play utility), so please do stand up for your loyal customers that have placed their trust (and their hard-earned money) in your technology and act on their behalf and in their interest.



3D gaming can be such an incredible and immersive experience when done right, and I'm hopeful that these minor kinks can be worked out fairly easily if only NVIDIA are willing to take to heart the wishes of their loyal consumer base.

Posted 12/04/2011 01:39 AM   
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='03 December 2011 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1322950166' post='1337155']
i5 2500k @ 4.7 GHz, dual 570 GTXs SLI slightly OC'ed, 8GB ram, ~65% utilization each 570GTX and only 50% utilization on all four CPU cores = [b]30-40 FPS[/b]... there's absolutely performance issues. Switch over to 2D and resource utilization goes up significantly and I get 100-120fps. Setting at Ultra except no deferred AA and only 25% motion blur (personal preference).
[/quote]
Certainly possible there's performance issues with the game in 3D but the fact you're getting as-expected performance in 2D with nearly 100% GPU utilization but less-than-expected performance in 3D again points to BF3 client being the problem. Remember, Frostbite 2 is handling all the stereo rendering here, so its not Nvidia's stereo service charged with keeping your GPUs fed, its the Frostbite 2 engine rendering both camera views for stereo 3D.

Its also possible you're running into VRAM limitations or some other setting holding you back. Have you tried disabling Ambient Occlusion?

[quote name='johnyz333' date='03 December 2011 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1322962552' post='1337212']
Told ya Chiz, there is definately a performance issue with this game when running in 3d.

BTW, just upgraded to the x79 platform, CPU stable at 4.8ghz, AND still perf issues with bf3 in 3d.

Not my hardware Chiz.
[/quote]
Or your settings, because it certainly runs fine for me and just as expected, roughly half of my 2D performance. Maybe there is an issue with the 500 series and BF3 or the engine itself is limiting framerates in 3D so that higher end cards aren't fully taken advantage of, we'll see if next week's patch addresses any of this.
[quote name='Cheezeman' date='03 December 2011 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1322950166' post='1337155']

i5 2500k @ 4.7 GHz, dual 570 GTXs SLI slightly OC'ed, 8GB ram, ~65% utilization each 570GTX and only 50% utilization on all four CPU cores = 30-40 FPS... there's absolutely performance issues. Switch over to 2D and resource utilization goes up significantly and I get 100-120fps. Setting at Ultra except no deferred AA and only 25% motion blur (personal preference).



Certainly possible there's performance issues with the game in 3D but the fact you're getting as-expected performance in 2D with nearly 100% GPU utilization but less-than-expected performance in 3D again points to BF3 client being the problem. Remember, Frostbite 2 is handling all the stereo rendering here, so its not Nvidia's stereo service charged with keeping your GPUs fed, its the Frostbite 2 engine rendering both camera views for stereo 3D.



Its also possible you're running into VRAM limitations or some other setting holding you back. Have you tried disabling Ambient Occlusion?



[quote name='johnyz333' date='03 December 2011 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1322962552' post='1337212']

Told ya Chiz, there is definately a performance issue with this game when running in 3d.



BTW, just upgraded to the x79 platform, CPU stable at 4.8ghz, AND still perf issues with bf3 in 3d.



Not my hardware Chiz.



Or your settings, because it certainly runs fine for me and just as expected, roughly half of my 2D performance. Maybe there is an issue with the 500 series and BF3 or the engine itself is limiting framerates in 3D so that higher end cards aren't fully taken advantage of, we'll see if next week's patch addresses any of this.

-=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

Posted 12/04/2011 04:52 AM   
[quote name='chiz' date='03 December 2011 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1322974350' post='1337251']
Certainly possible there's performance issues with the game in 3D but the fact you're getting as-expected performance in 2D with nearly 100% GPU utilization but less-than-expected performance in 3D again points to BF3 client being the problem. Remember, Frostbite 2 is handling all the stereo rendering here, so its not Nvidia's stereo service charged with keeping your GPUs fed, its the Frostbite 2 engine rendering both camera views for stereo 3D.

Its also possible you're running into VRAM limitations or some other setting holding you back. Have you tried disabling Ambient Occlusion?


Or your settings, because it certainly runs fine for me and just as expected, roughly half of my 2D performance. Maybe there is an issue with the 500 series and BF3 or the engine itself is limiting framerates in 3D so that higher end cards aren't fully taken advantage of, we'll see if next week's patch addresses any of this.
[/quote]


Yer Chiz I'm also thinking its an issue with the 500 series, will wait to see what happens with the upcoming patch.
[quote name='chiz' date='03 December 2011 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1322974350' post='1337251']

Certainly possible there's performance issues with the game in 3D but the fact you're getting as-expected performance in 2D with nearly 100% GPU utilization but less-than-expected performance in 3D again points to BF3 client being the problem. Remember, Frostbite 2 is handling all the stereo rendering here, so its not Nvidia's stereo service charged with keeping your GPUs fed, its the Frostbite 2 engine rendering both camera views for stereo 3D.



Its also possible you're running into VRAM limitations or some other setting holding you back. Have you tried disabling Ambient Occlusion?





Or your settings, because it certainly runs fine for me and just as expected, roughly half of my 2D performance. Maybe there is an issue with the 500 series and BF3 or the engine itself is limiting framerates in 3D so that higher end cards aren't fully taken advantage of, we'll see if next week's patch addresses any of this.







Yer Chiz I'm also thinking its an issue with the 500 series, will wait to see what happens with the upcoming patch.

Posted 12/04/2011 07:28 AM   
Well said ds445.
Well said ds445.

Posted 12/04/2011 07:51 AM   
  28 / 43    
Scroll To Top