I couldn't help but notice a bunch of threads on here, Reddit and Occulus Forums comparing 3D Vision to the new VR headsets experience wise.
It's really cringe worthy reading people's post saying 3D Vision was always gimmicky dead useless technology that NVidia ripped us off with and Occulus/Vive are far superior. From people who have obviously never touched our 3D Vision Tech.
I've owned 3D Vision tech for 4 years and VR tech (Rift DK2) for a year.
Tried a CV1 headset and I felt the slight resolution increase was just not enough to call it a consumer model.
I'm going to give my opinions based off this experience.
Now lets talk immersion.....
3DVision gave me the most immersive jaw dropping experiences till this day with PC Gaming.
The best driving experiences I've had has been with 3D Vision over VR.
There is nothing like cranking the convergence and pop out up on a driving based game such as Aseetto Corsa/Project Cars, Test Drive Unlimted, GTA4/5.
I've actually got a better feeling of speed through using 3D and FOV mods, because I can actually see the depth of a road ahead of me and it actually feels like my car is physically on that road with all its textures that pop out in 3D Vision. Also the depth and popout of 3d objects on the sides of the road wizzing past me at high speed.
Now where VR grabs me immersion wise is the surround feeling of me being inside of a car, but without true 3D and a much clearer image quality I just could not get that feeling of speed and velocity in those same game titles using VR, but you do indeed feel inside of the game in another dimension and there is nothing like looking over in VR and seeing another car beside you trying to pass you. Definitely some wow moments.
[IMG]http://i961.photobucket.com/albums/ae96/sugafree84/ezgif.com-gif-maker_zpsmfit8g49.gif[/IMG]
On about those moments...I found myself alot of times just sitting thier gazing and admiring objects craftsmanship and artwork in 3D Vision. Walking around a custom player created car in GTA 5 and just noticing every little detail that went into the cars interior that now really pops out in 3D.
Full 1080p 3D Vision just brings these models to life as they pop out of your screen as if you can touch them.
Going from GTA 5 in full 1080 3D to the lower image quality VR is just downright depressing.
Right now 3d in VR just isn't there without better image quality and 2D VR is just not satisfying coming from full true 1080p 3D Vision.
It's just more about the actual scale of objects that amaze you in VR.
When we can get the same crisp full 3D Monitor resolution in a VR headset with great performance that will be the headset I will purchase immediately....till then I just don't feel like CV1 and Vive are there yet.
So I pretty much use my 3D Vision for image quality object immersion and
I use my VR headset for scale, position and tracking immersion.
To me using both of these technologies isn't about playing through games but I do it for those awe and wow factors of just sitting there sucking it all in.
I can not wait for the day we have a both in a full blown VR headset!!!!!
I couldn't help but notice a bunch of threads on here, Reddit and Occulus Forums comparing 3D Vision to the new VR headsets experience wise.
It's really cringe worthy reading people's post saying 3D Vision was always gimmicky dead useless technology that NVidia ripped us off with and Occulus/Vive are far superior. From people who have obviously never touched our 3D Vision Tech.
I've owned 3D Vision tech for 4 years and VR tech (Rift DK2) for a year.
Tried a CV1 headset and I felt the slight resolution increase was just not enough to call it a consumer model.
I'm going to give my opinions based off this experience.
Now lets talk immersion.....
3DVision gave me the most immersive jaw dropping experiences till this day with PC Gaming.
The best driving experiences I've had has been with 3D Vision over VR.
There is nothing like cranking the convergence and pop out up on a driving based game such as Aseetto Corsa/Project Cars, Test Drive Unlimted, GTA4/5.
I've actually got a better feeling of speed through using 3D and FOV mods, because I can actually see the depth of a road ahead of me and it actually feels like my car is physically on that road with all its textures that pop out in 3D Vision. Also the depth and popout of 3d objects on the sides of the road wizzing past me at high speed.
Now where VR grabs me immersion wise is the surround feeling of me being inside of a car, but without true 3D and a much clearer image quality I just could not get that feeling of speed and velocity in those same game titles using VR, but you do indeed feel inside of the game in another dimension and there is nothing like looking over in VR and seeing another car beside you trying to pass you. Definitely some wow moments.
On about those moments...I found myself alot of times just sitting thier gazing and admiring objects craftsmanship and artwork in 3D Vision. Walking around a custom player created car in GTA 5 and just noticing every little detail that went into the cars interior that now really pops out in 3D.
Full 1080p 3D Vision just brings these models to life as they pop out of your screen as if you can touch them.
Going from GTA 5 in full 1080 3D to the lower image quality VR is just downright depressing.
Right now 3d in VR just isn't there without better image quality and 2D VR is just not satisfying coming from full true 1080p 3D Vision.
It's just more about the actual scale of objects that amaze you in VR.
When we can get the same crisp full 3D Monitor resolution in a VR headset with great performance that will be the headset I will purchase immediately....till then I just don't feel like CV1 and Vive are there yet.
So I pretty much use my 3D Vision for image quality object immersion and
I use my VR headset for scale, position and tracking immersion.
To me using both of these technologies isn't about playing through games but I do it for those awe and wow factors of just sitting there sucking it all in.
I can not wait for the day we have a both in a full blown VR headset!!!!!
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
Im playing racing games from Assetto, Pcars, Raceroom and other arcade titles.
Tested with my Single and Surround 3D Vision Setup and VR DK2.
I cant imagine driving theses games with flat 2D. You need the depth to get a feeling of distance, breaking points and so on.
These insidesimracing guys tested 3D Vision and reviewed it very positive ... check out youtube Videos about these racing addicted buddies from insidesimracing ... great crew.
Dont know why simracers renounce to 3D Vision and prefer flat driving. But as we know most of them have never seen what could be possible. Our niche 3D Vision feature is the only reason, why Im still playing computer games. Im on since Atari and co. wanted to quit gaming 4 years ago ... but with a lot of luck 3D Vision crossed my way.
I also tested DK2 and this lack of ppi was making me pixel counting and frustrated. So I decided to pass all CV1 VR Kits and wait for 4K VR. Maybe VR will jump out of the niche, that 3D Vision ever was. Im not sure if this will happen. Costs for VR Kits are too expensive for mainstream users but developers need mainstream mass to justifie their investments. What a mess with this Lucky Palmer guy promising CV Vr for 300 to maximum 400,- and a few weeks later price was doubled. That was the beginning of VR mainstream suicide.
Maybe Sony VR can reach mainstream users, well see. I talked to people of our 3D Vision community about VR and future. Maybe VR users will be same niche operators in a few years like 3D Vision community at present day.
Im playing racing games from Assetto, Pcars, Raceroom and other arcade titles.
Tested with my Single and Surround 3D Vision Setup and VR DK2.
I cant imagine driving theses games with flat 2D. You need the depth to get a feeling of distance, breaking points and so on.
These insidesimracing guys tested 3D Vision and reviewed it very positive ... check out youtube Videos about these racing addicted buddies from insidesimracing ... great crew.
Dont know why simracers renounce to 3D Vision and prefer flat driving. But as we know most of them have never seen what could be possible. Our niche 3D Vision feature is the only reason, why Im still playing computer games. Im on since Atari and co. wanted to quit gaming 4 years ago ... but with a lot of luck 3D Vision crossed my way.
I also tested DK2 and this lack of ppi was making me pixel counting and frustrated. So I decided to pass all CV1 VR Kits and wait for 4K VR. Maybe VR will jump out of the niche, that 3D Vision ever was. Im not sure if this will happen. Costs for VR Kits are too expensive for mainstream users but developers need mainstream mass to justifie their investments. What a mess with this Lucky Palmer guy promising CV Vr for 300 to maximum 400,- and a few weeks later price was doubled. That was the beginning of VR mainstream suicide.
Maybe Sony VR can reach mainstream users, well see. I talked to people of our 3D Vision community about VR and future. Maybe VR users will be same niche operators in a few years like 3D Vision community at present day.
So you both saying that some games are in 2D when playing on VR headset. I can imagine that those which are straight forward conversion are 2D but what about games that are remade for VR like Dirt Racing ?
So you both saying that some games are in 2D when playing on VR headset. I can imagine that those which are straight forward conversion are 2D but what about games that are remade for VR like Dirt Racing ?
[quote="SKAUT"]So you both saying that some games are in 2D when playing on VR headset. I can imagine that those which are straight forward conversion are 2D but what about games that are remade for VR like Dirt Racing ?[/quote]
I dont think there are vr games that are in 2d. Some 360 videos are 2d, they suck, but all the games are in 3d. Real 3d, not that reprojection unless you count vorpx.
SKAUT said:So you both saying that some games are in 2D when playing on VR headset. I can imagine that those which are straight forward conversion are 2D but what about games that are remade for VR like Dirt Racing ?
I dont think there are vr games that are in 2d. Some 360 videos are 2d, they suck, but all the games are in 3d. Real 3d, not that reprojection unless you count vorpx.
3D Vision enhances any computer game it is applied to, making it more immersive and sucking you in.
VR is another kind of experience. While the immersion factor can potentially be deeper, its whole design favors new and different applications, than the games we are used to.
The only overlap, where both work well, are racing and space sim games, or basically anything you are sitting in a cockpit. And even there the differences between the two techniques are obvious.
3D Vision enhances any computer game it is applied to, making it more immersive and sucking you in.
VR is another kind of experience. While the immersion factor can potentially be deeper, its whole design favors new and different applications, than the games we are used to.
The only overlap, where both work well, are racing and space sim games, or basically anything you are sitting in a cockpit. And even there the differences between the two techniques are obvious.
[quote="SKAUT"]So you both saying that some games are in 2D when playing on VR headset. I can imagine that those which are straight forward conversion are 2D but what about games that are remade for VR like Dirt Racing ?[/quote]
Yes what Sammy said.....the games I favor mostly require VorpX to work with that reproduced 3d which is crappy vector based 3d.
To me in my opinion the native 3d app games for Occulus Rift are kiddy arcade crap that I can't be bothered with.
My most immersive adrenaline filled experience with VR was Planetside 2 using VorpX.
To actually walk up to your fighter which was scaled nicely relative to your actual player size and hop in the cockpit and actually look down as you lift off the ground into flight and feel the altitude and height as you see the troops below you turn into little ants.
In dogfighting I turned absolutely deadly to both ground and air targets...the VR gives you that peripheral edge like no other I could literally land on a dime and maneuver my fighter into the tightest situations.
Think I'm actually gonna set up my DK2 again just to play Planetside if it still works after the games latest updates, but may be ban-able to run Vorpx in the background these days
SKAUT said:So you both saying that some games are in 2D when playing on VR headset. I can imagine that those which are straight forward conversion are 2D but what about games that are remade for VR like Dirt Racing ?
Yes what Sammy said.....the games I favor mostly require VorpX to work with that reproduced 3d which is crappy vector based 3d.
To me in my opinion the native 3d app games for Occulus Rift are kiddy arcade crap that I can't be bothered with.
My most immersive adrenaline filled experience with VR was Planetside 2 using VorpX.
To actually walk up to your fighter which was scaled nicely relative to your actual player size and hop in the cockpit and actually look down as you lift off the ground into flight and feel the altitude and height as you see the troops below you turn into little ants.
In dogfighting I turned absolutely deadly to both ground and air targets...the VR gives you that peripheral edge like no other I could literally land on a dime and maneuver my fighter into the tightest situations.
Think I'm actually gonna set up my DK2 again just to play Planetside if it still works after the games latest updates, but may be ban-able to run Vorpx in the background these days
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
Hi Clammy,
I agree with your sentiment. Right now, 3DVision has far more to offer than VR. That is also a nice review in your first post.
I'm not sure your comparison is fair however.
You are comparing an evolved Proper Stereo3D experience with 3D Vision to a prototype VR headset working in the equivalent to compatibility mode - not real 3D.
Having owned both a DK2 and CV1, and also being a Stereo3D gamer for a /very/ long time, I might be able to add something...
Granted that CV1/Vive ups the resolution only a little - there are other areas which it significantly improved:
-- True FOV: DK2 got more blury with a small sweet spot in the centre whereas CV1 / Vive is more focussed all round.
-- Screen door effect: CV1 is almost eliminated whereas DK2 is quite noticeable
-- Resolution: the effective resolution of both the CV1 and the Vive is ~2560x1600 due to the supersampling and warping. This can be enhanced using various hacks, which really does improve the overall resolution quite significantly. It is actually better than 1080p that you are gaming in 3D Vision with.
FPS: VR = fluid 90. 3D Vision = 'acceptable' 60 / 72.
Brightness: 3D Vision on TN panels / DLP projectors cut out ~75% of the image brightness due to the glasses blocking out light due to the LCD flashing and the polarisation of the lenses, which leaves the image dim and dark. VR has superbright pentile AMOLED displays which are best on the market - for colour renditioning, vividness, and brightness. The cheapest AMOLED monitor is even ~$10,000 IIRC as a rough comparison.
Head tracking: even in a seated experience, this is very important factor which 3D Vision lacks.
For a fair apples to apples comparison, playing an older AAA title such as HL2, Portal 2, mass effect series etc, (using VorpX proper 3D geometry mode on a CV1 vs. 3D Vision on a projector, both supersampled to 2560x1600), In my honest opinion, VR blows 3D Vision out of the water. When going back to projector 3D Vision, I really do feel I am missing a huge lot - the immersion due to the encompassing FOV, the fluid 90 FPS, the real life brightness and colours, and the real life head-tracking add a huge amount.
Unfortunately, content such as AAA titles is hard to come by so 3D vision picks up the slack.
Right now, for example, I am trying to play through 3D Vision Witcher 3 / GTA5 which are a no go for VR for various reasons.
Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.
I agree with your sentiment. Right now, 3DVision has far more to offer than VR. That is also a nice review in your first post.
I'm not sure your comparison is fair however.
You are comparing an evolved Proper Stereo3D experience with 3D Vision to a prototype VR headset working in the equivalent to compatibility mode - not real 3D.
Having owned both a DK2 and CV1, and also being a Stereo3D gamer for a /very/ long time, I might be able to add something...
Granted that CV1/Vive ups the resolution only a little - there are other areas which it significantly improved:
-- True FOV: DK2 got more blury with a small sweet spot in the centre whereas CV1 / Vive is more focussed all round.
-- Screen door effect: CV1 is almost eliminated whereas DK2 is quite noticeable
-- Resolution: the effective resolution of both the CV1 and the Vive is ~2560x1600 due to the supersampling and warping. This can be enhanced using various hacks, which really does improve the overall resolution quite significantly. It is actually better than 1080p that you are gaming in 3D Vision with.
Brightness: 3D Vision on TN panels / DLP projectors cut out ~75% of the image brightness due to the glasses blocking out light due to the LCD flashing and the polarisation of the lenses, which leaves the image dim and dark. VR has superbright pentile AMOLED displays which are best on the market - for colour renditioning, vividness, and brightness. The cheapest AMOLED monitor is even ~$10,000 IIRC as a rough comparison.
Head tracking: even in a seated experience, this is very important factor which 3D Vision lacks.
For a fair apples to apples comparison, playing an older AAA title such as HL2, Portal 2, mass effect series etc, (using VorpX proper 3D geometry mode on a CV1 vs. 3D Vision on a projector, both supersampled to 2560x1600), In my honest opinion, VR blows 3D Vision out of the water. When going back to projector 3D Vision, I really do feel I am missing a huge lot - the immersion due to the encompassing FOV, the fluid 90 FPS, the real life brightness and colours, and the real life head-tracking add a huge amount.
Unfortunately, content such as AAA titles is hard to come by so 3D vision picks up the slack.
Right now, for example, I am trying to play through 3D Vision Witcher 3 / GTA5 which are a no go for VR for various reasons.
Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote="RAGEdemon"]
Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.
[/quote]
So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;)
I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS.
Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)
RAGEdemon said:
Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.
So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;)
I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS.
Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
IYAM cockpit games, where VR has been well implimeted (so that excludes any VorpX game) will always blow 3D Vision away. The immersion factor just trumps, end of story.
That means the following games: Dirt Rally, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, Aerofly FS2 Flight Simulator, Euro Truck Simulator 2, American Truck Simulator and Eve Valkyrie... I don't think I have missed any... all eight of these abovementioned games blow 3D Vision away.
That 'just' leaves any FPS, RTS, RPG, grand strategy and 3rd person: action, RPG, MMORPG etc. game which I think play much better in 3D than VR
IYAM cockpit games, where VR has been well implimeted (so that excludes any VorpX game) will always blow 3D Vision away. The immersion factor just trumps, end of story.
That means the following games: Dirt Rally, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, Aerofly FS2 Flight Simulator, Euro Truck Simulator 2, American Truck Simulator and Eve Valkyrie... I don't think I have missed any... all eight of these abovementioned games blow 3D Vision away.
That 'just' leaves any FPS, RTS, RPG, grand strategy and 3rd person: action, RPG, MMORPG etc. game which I think play much better in 3D than VR
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
[quote="andysonofbob"]IYAM cockpit games, where VR has been well implimeted (so that excludes any VorpX game) will always blow 3D Vision away. The immersion factor just trumps, end of story.
That means the following games: Dirt Rally, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, Aerofly FS2 Flight Simulator, Euro Truck Simulator 2, American Truck Simulator and Eve Valkyrie... I don't think I have missed any... all eight of these abovementioned games blow 3D Vision away.
That 'just' leaves any FPS, RTS, RPG, grand strategy and 3rd person: action, RPG, MMORPG etc. game which I think play much better in 3D than VR[/quote]
I would personally add Live for Speed and Richard Burns Rally. While both are older games, both allow you to go crazy with the multi-sampling as a result. (Also iracing, although Vive isn't scheduled for support until September).
The City course in Live For Speed (Season 1 upgrade) feels a bit like being inside a classic Namco arcade racer. LFS is a pretty hardcore sim, but graphically speaking, it's like that. The City course and the little go-kart racer is pretty freaking awesome when the image quality is completely clean.
Same goes for Richard Burns Rally. The guy who made the hack for the DK2 updated support for OpenVR/Vive. Even includes support for the Vive controllers:
http://www.kegetys.fi/rbrvr-richard-burns-rally-vr-mod-for-openvr/
RBR is a super hardcore sim. So, if you suck at racing, there's a decent chance you're going to get motion sick the first time playing (Since you'll be crashing/reversing so much). But it's got awesome physics. There's also tons of mods including yearly update packages.
It's absolutely insane that a single individual receives a Vive, and one week later, introduces a mod that, quite frankly, destroys all other VR implementations. The UI is absolutely brilliant. Most of the racing sim UIs, quite frankly, suck. And this is just some dude who writes a hack that's totally brilliant. Would pay money to have him fix the other race sims (and flat out add support for rFactor 2 and Automobolista).
andysonofbob said:IYAM cockpit games, where VR has been well implimeted (so that excludes any VorpX game) will always blow 3D Vision away. The immersion factor just trumps, end of story.
That means the following games: Dirt Rally, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, Aerofly FS2 Flight Simulator, Euro Truck Simulator 2, American Truck Simulator and Eve Valkyrie... I don't think I have missed any... all eight of these abovementioned games blow 3D Vision away.
That 'just' leaves any FPS, RTS, RPG, grand strategy and 3rd person: action, RPG, MMORPG etc. game which I think play much better in 3D than VR
I would personally add Live for Speed and Richard Burns Rally. While both are older games, both allow you to go crazy with the multi-sampling as a result. (Also iracing, although Vive isn't scheduled for support until September).
The City course in Live For Speed (Season 1 upgrade) feels a bit like being inside a classic Namco arcade racer. LFS is a pretty hardcore sim, but graphically speaking, it's like that. The City course and the little go-kart racer is pretty freaking awesome when the image quality is completely clean.
RBR is a super hardcore sim. So, if you suck at racing, there's a decent chance you're going to get motion sick the first time playing (Since you'll be crashing/reversing so much). But it's got awesome physics. There's also tons of mods including yearly update packages.
It's absolutely insane that a single individual receives a Vive, and one week later, introduces a mod that, quite frankly, destroys all other VR implementations. The UI is absolutely brilliant. Most of the racing sim UIs, quite frankly, suck. And this is just some dude who writes a hack that's totally brilliant. Would pay money to have him fix the other race sims (and flat out add support for rFactor 2 and Automobolista).
[quote="Paul33993"]VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
[/quote]
Decent isn't enough at over $1000 worth of GPU and VR headset...for just decent
Paul33993 said:VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
Decent isn't enough at over $1000 worth of GPU and VR headset...for just decent
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
[quote="clammy"][quote="Paul33993"]VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
[/quote]
Decent isn't enough at over $1000 worth of GPU and VR headset...for just decent[/quote]
For it's biggest detraction, it really is. People love to pick on VR for singular deficiencies, but every other display has huge issues too. For sim racing, it blows the doors off of any monitors (3D or 2D). There's an immersion factor with VR that absolutely destroys the alternatives.
I agree it's mighty expensive, but I personally consider it a ton more palatable than spending 800 - 1000 dollars on one of thees ridiculous gaming monitors. Those prices keep creeping higher and higher (when they're fundamentally no different than the Asus I bought years ago for a fraction of the cost).
Paul33993 said:VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
Decent isn't enough at over $1000 worth of GPU and VR headset...for just decent
For it's biggest detraction, it really is. People love to pick on VR for singular deficiencies, but every other display has huge issues too. For sim racing, it blows the doors off of any monitors (3D or 2D). There's an immersion factor with VR that absolutely destroys the alternatives.
I agree it's mighty expensive, but I personally consider it a ton more palatable than spending 800 - 1000 dollars on one of thees ridiculous gaming monitors. Those prices keep creeping higher and higher (when they're fundamentally no different than the Asus I bought years ago for a fraction of the cost).
[quote="Paul33993"][quote="clammy"][quote="Paul33993"]VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
[/quote]
Decent isn't enough at over $1000 worth of GPU and VR headset...for just decent[/quote]
For sim racing, it blows the doors off of any monitors (3D or 2D). [/quote]
Nope....I just can't agree with that right now...with the current CV1 and Vive Tech
Paul33993 said:VR imnage quality actually is fairly decent if you crank up the super sampling. Of course, setting the multiplier to 2.0 is 2160 x 1200 X 1.4 X 2.0 = rendering resolution of 6048 X 3360.
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
Decent isn't enough at over $1000 worth of GPU and VR headset...for just decent
For sim racing, it blows the doors off of any monitors (3D or 2D).
Nope....I just can't agree with that right now...with the current CV1 and Vive Tech
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
I use to race real cars and play on motion simulator on 150 inch 3D screen with TrackIR. That`s why I understand the advantage VR brings to racing titles compare to 3D Vision.
There is nothing better then freedom in looking around inside the car. It is not only about going ahead - it`s also about managing car in environment, seeing other racers and obstacles. It`s really hard to slide your car sideway when you looking ahead and to corner in sharp turn sometimes you have to drift a little.
I am definitely going back to my Motion Sim Rig when I get my hands on VR headset.
I use to race real cars and play on motion simulator on 150 inch 3D screen with TrackIR. That`s why I understand the advantage VR brings to racing titles compare to 3D Vision.
There is nothing better then freedom in looking around inside the car. It is not only about going ahead - it`s also about managing car in environment, seeing other racers and obstacles. It`s really hard to slide your car sideway when you looking ahead and to corner in sharp turn sometimes you have to drift a little.
I am definitely going back to my Motion Sim Rig when I get my hands on VR headset.
It's really cringe worthy reading people's post saying 3D Vision was always gimmicky dead useless technology that NVidia ripped us off with and Occulus/Vive are far superior. From people who have obviously never touched our 3D Vision Tech.
I've owned 3D Vision tech for 4 years and VR tech (Rift DK2) for a year.
Tried a CV1 headset and I felt the slight resolution increase was just not enough to call it a consumer model.
I'm going to give my opinions based off this experience.
Now lets talk immersion.....
3DVision gave me the most immersive jaw dropping experiences till this day with PC Gaming.
The best driving experiences I've had has been with 3D Vision over VR.
There is nothing like cranking the convergence and pop out up on a driving based game such as Aseetto Corsa/Project Cars, Test Drive Unlimted, GTA4/5.
I've actually got a better feeling of speed through using 3D and FOV mods, because I can actually see the depth of a road ahead of me and it actually feels like my car is physically on that road with all its textures that pop out in 3D Vision. Also the depth and popout of 3d objects on the sides of the road wizzing past me at high speed.
Now where VR grabs me immersion wise is the surround feeling of me being inside of a car, but without true 3D and a much clearer image quality I just could not get that feeling of speed and velocity in those same game titles using VR, but you do indeed feel inside of the game in another dimension and there is nothing like looking over in VR and seeing another car beside you trying to pass you. Definitely some wow moments.
On about those moments...I found myself alot of times just sitting thier gazing and admiring objects craftsmanship and artwork in 3D Vision. Walking around a custom player created car in GTA 5 and just noticing every little detail that went into the cars interior that now really pops out in 3D.
Full 1080p 3D Vision just brings these models to life as they pop out of your screen as if you can touch them.
Going from GTA 5 in full 1080 3D to the lower image quality VR is just downright depressing.
Right now 3d in VR just isn't there without better image quality and 2D VR is just not satisfying coming from full true 1080p 3D Vision.
It's just more about the actual scale of objects that amaze you in VR.
When we can get the same crisp full 3D Monitor resolution in a VR headset with great performance that will be the headset I will purchase immediately....till then I just don't feel like CV1 and Vive are there yet.
So I pretty much use my 3D Vision for image quality object immersion and
I use my VR headset for scale, position and tracking immersion.
To me using both of these technologies isn't about playing through games but I do it for those awe and wow factors of just sitting there sucking it all in.
I can not wait for the day we have a both in a full blown VR headset!!!!!
Gaming Rig 1
i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO
Gaming Rig 2
My new build
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
Tested with my Single and Surround 3D Vision Setup and VR DK2.
I cant imagine driving theses games with flat 2D. You need the depth to get a feeling of distance, breaking points and so on.
These insidesimracing guys tested 3D Vision and reviewed it very positive ... check out youtube Videos about these racing addicted buddies from insidesimracing ... great crew.
Dont know why simracers renounce to 3D Vision and prefer flat driving. But as we know most of them have never seen what could be possible. Our niche 3D Vision feature is the only reason, why Im still playing computer games. Im on since Atari and co. wanted to quit gaming 4 years ago ... but with a lot of luck 3D Vision crossed my way.
I also tested DK2 and this lack of ppi was making me pixel counting and frustrated. So I decided to pass all CV1 VR Kits and wait for 4K VR. Maybe VR will jump out of the niche, that 3D Vision ever was. Im not sure if this will happen. Costs for VR Kits are too expensive for mainstream users but developers need mainstream mass to justifie their investments. What a mess with this Lucky Palmer guy promising CV Vr for 300 to maximum 400,- and a few weeks later price was doubled. That was the beginning of VR mainstream suicide.
Maybe Sony VR can reach mainstream users, well see. I talked to people of our 3D Vision community about VR and future. Maybe VR users will be same niche operators in a few years like 3D Vision community at present day.
System: http://www.sysprofile.de/id159419
Nvidia 3D Vision - Virtual Reality - 3D Gaming:
http://www.computerbase.de/forum/showthread.php?t=1546633
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198014296177/
I dont think there are vr games that are in 2d. Some 360 videos are 2d, they suck, but all the games are in 3d. Real 3d, not that reprojection unless you count vorpx.
VR is another kind of experience. While the immersion factor can potentially be deeper, its whole design favors new and different applications, than the games we are used to.
The only overlap, where both work well, are racing and space sim games, or basically anything you are sitting in a cockpit. And even there the differences between the two techniques are obvious.
Yes what Sammy said.....the games I favor mostly require VorpX to work with that reproduced 3d which is crappy vector based 3d.
To me in my opinion the native 3d app games for Occulus Rift are kiddy arcade crap that I can't be bothered with.
My most immersive adrenaline filled experience with VR was Planetside 2 using VorpX.
To actually walk up to your fighter which was scaled nicely relative to your actual player size and hop in the cockpit and actually look down as you lift off the ground into flight and feel the altitude and height as you see the troops below you turn into little ants.
In dogfighting I turned absolutely deadly to both ground and air targets...the VR gives you that peripheral edge like no other I could literally land on a dime and maneuver my fighter into the tightest situations.
Think I'm actually gonna set up my DK2 again just to play Planetside if it still works after the games latest updates, but may be ban-able to run Vorpx in the background these days
Gaming Rig 1
i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO
Gaming Rig 2
My new build
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
I agree with your sentiment. Right now, 3DVision has far more to offer than VR. That is also a nice review in your first post.
I'm not sure your comparison is fair however.
You are comparing an evolved Proper Stereo3D experience with 3D Vision to a prototype VR headset working in the equivalent to compatibility mode - not real 3D.
Having owned both a DK2 and CV1, and also being a Stereo3D gamer for a /very/ long time, I might be able to add something...
Granted that CV1/Vive ups the resolution only a little - there are other areas which it significantly improved:
-- True FOV: DK2 got more blury with a small sweet spot in the centre whereas CV1 / Vive is more focussed all round.
-- Screen door effect: CV1 is almost eliminated whereas DK2 is quite noticeable
-- Resolution: the effective resolution of both the CV1 and the Vive is ~2560x1600 due to the supersampling and warping. This can be enhanced using various hacks, which really does improve the overall resolution quite significantly. It is actually better than 1080p that you are gaming in 3D Vision with.
FPS: VR = fluid 90. 3D Vision = 'acceptable' 60 / 72.
Brightness: 3D Vision on TN panels / DLP projectors cut out ~75% of the image brightness due to the glasses blocking out light due to the LCD flashing and the polarisation of the lenses, which leaves the image dim and dark. VR has superbright pentile AMOLED displays which are best on the market - for colour renditioning, vividness, and brightness. The cheapest AMOLED monitor is even ~$10,000 IIRC as a rough comparison.
Head tracking: even in a seated experience, this is very important factor which 3D Vision lacks.
For a fair apples to apples comparison, playing an older AAA title such as HL2, Portal 2, mass effect series etc, (using VorpX proper 3D geometry mode on a CV1 vs. 3D Vision on a projector, both supersampled to 2560x1600), In my honest opinion, VR blows 3D Vision out of the water. When going back to projector 3D Vision, I really do feel I am missing a huge lot - the immersion due to the encompassing FOV, the fluid 90 FPS, the real life brightness and colours, and the real life head-tracking add a huge amount.
Unfortunately, content such as AAA titles is hard to come by so 3D vision picks up the slack.
Right now, for example, I am trying to play through 3D Vision Witcher 3 / GTA5 which are a no go for VR for various reasons.
Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;)
I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS.
Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
Sad thing it, if the developer isn't using any AA, even that won't get rid of all the aliasing. But if there is AA, it produces a fantastically crisp image that shows the biggest issue isn't the low resolution screens, it's the aliasing that occurs at those lower resolutions.
Foveated rendering and higher resolution screen are going to make gen 2 sets look great. I was skeptical until I witnessed the miracle of aliasing elimination. That's VR's biggest enemy and any developer who prioritizes worthless lighting/graphical effects over MSAA is clueless. Nobody gives a rip if it's a jagged mess.
That means the following games: Dirt Rally, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, Aerofly FS2 Flight Simulator, Euro Truck Simulator 2, American Truck Simulator and Eve Valkyrie... I don't think I have missed any... all eight of these abovementioned games blow 3D Vision away.
That 'just' leaves any FPS, RTS, RPG, grand strategy and 3rd person: action, RPG, MMORPG etc. game which I think play much better in 3D than VR
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
I would personally add Live for Speed and Richard Burns Rally. While both are older games, both allow you to go crazy with the multi-sampling as a result. (Also iracing, although Vive isn't scheduled for support until September).
The City course in Live For Speed (Season 1 upgrade) feels a bit like being inside a classic Namco arcade racer. LFS is a pretty hardcore sim, but graphically speaking, it's like that. The City course and the little go-kart racer is pretty freaking awesome when the image quality is completely clean.
Same goes for Richard Burns Rally. The guy who made the hack for the DK2 updated support for OpenVR/Vive. Even includes support for the Vive controllers:
http://www.kegetys.fi/rbrvr-richard-burns-rally-vr-mod-for-openvr/
RBR is a super hardcore sim. So, if you suck at racing, there's a decent chance you're going to get motion sick the first time playing (Since you'll be crashing/reversing so much). But it's got awesome physics. There's also tons of mods including yearly update packages.
It's absolutely insane that a single individual receives a Vive, and one week later, introduces a mod that, quite frankly, destroys all other VR implementations. The UI is absolutely brilliant. Most of the racing sim UIs, quite frankly, suck. And this is just some dude who writes a hack that's totally brilliant. Would pay money to have him fix the other race sims (and flat out add support for rFactor 2 and Automobolista).
Decent isn't enough at over $1000 worth of GPU and VR headset...for just decent
Gaming Rig 1
i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO
Gaming Rig 2
My new build
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
For it's biggest detraction, it really is. People love to pick on VR for singular deficiencies, but every other display has huge issues too. For sim racing, it blows the doors off of any monitors (3D or 2D). There's an immersion factor with VR that absolutely destroys the alternatives.
I agree it's mighty expensive, but I personally consider it a ton more palatable than spending 800 - 1000 dollars on one of thees ridiculous gaming monitors. Those prices keep creeping higher and higher (when they're fundamentally no different than the Asus I bought years ago for a fraction of the cost).
Nope....I just can't agree with that right now...with the current CV1 and Vive Tech
Gaming Rig 1
i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO
Gaming Rig 2
My new build
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
There is nothing better then freedom in looking around inside the car. It is not only about going ahead - it`s also about managing car in environment, seeing other racers and obstacles. It`s really hard to slide your car sideway when you looking ahead and to corner in sharp turn sometimes you have to drift a little.
I am definitely going back to my Motion Sim Rig when I get my hands on VR headset.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198014296177/