I kept Dorkirt's meshes for the stars and clouds and delete the two files in the shaderinput folder I mentioned above: vsh674DF86F.txt and vshBFC2678F.txt. Here is what my night sky looks like:
I kept Dorkirt's meshes for the stars and clouds and delete the two files in the shaderinput folder I mentioned above: vsh674DF86F.txt and vshBFC2678F.txt. Here is what my night sky looks like:
[quote name='CamRaiD' date='26 December 2011 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1324922843' post='1347407']
I just tried the new update, v_0101.zip of the antifreeze mod, and corresponding 3d sky and water fix, by Boris.
It appears to break the general colour of the game, but actually ADD AMBIENT OCCLUSION, to 3d mode.
Wondering if anyone else out there has tried this update?
[/quote]
0101 enables a lot of the other ENB Series shader and graphic enhancements where AntiFreeze is basically just performance/crash fixes. 0101 also enables Boris' own Ambient Occlusion which is different from Nvidia's, which is probably why it works in 3D. If you open up ENBseries.ini you can see all the different shader settings and change them if you like (just delete or comment them out), you'll also see his version of AO is flagged on as well: EnableAmbientOcclusion=true
[quote name='CamRaiD' date='26 December 2011 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1324922843' post='1347407']
I just tried the new update, v_0101.zip of the antifreeze mod, and corresponding 3d sky and water fix, by Boris.
It appears to break the general colour of the game, but actually ADD AMBIENT OCCLUSION, to 3d mode.
Wondering if anyone else out there has tried this update?
0101 enables a lot of the other ENB Series shader and graphic enhancements where AntiFreeze is basically just performance/crash fixes. 0101 also enables Boris' own Ambient Occlusion which is different from Nvidia's, which is probably why it works in 3D. If you open up ENBseries.ini you can see all the different shader settings and change them if you like (just delete or comment them out), you'll also see his version of AO is flagged on as well: EnableAmbientOcclusion=true
A drag and drop, compiled, version of the 3D Vision fix is now downloadable, and from what I notice, the marshes and water of Morthul, are now improved. The sky, aurorus, night sky, and moons are fixed.
Doubled waters edge is improved globally, being replaced by what looks like a 'matt' black texture, distant water edges still show 'some' anomalies. At this point I would like to thank Boris, and VadersApp2 for cutting through the mess.
I also noticed that somewhere over a thousand people have downloaded the (IMO) defunct 'Dorkirt' fix of the Nexus.(Thanks for your help too Dorkirt). Hopefully they will find what they need through the trail of several weeks!
I can't wait for the creation kit to be released, and hopefully with it, some new hope for remaining issues!
A drag and drop, compiled, version of the 3D Vision fix is now downloadable, and from what I notice, the marshes and water of Morthul, are now improved. The sky, aurorus, night sky, and moons are fixed.
Doubled waters edge is improved globally, being replaced by what looks like a 'matt' black texture, distant water edges still show 'some' anomalies. At this point I would like to thank Boris, and VadersApp2 for cutting through the mess.
I also noticed that somewhere over a thousand people have downloaded the (IMO) defunct 'Dorkirt' fix of the Nexus.(Thanks for your help too Dorkirt). Hopefully they will find what they need through the trail of several weeks!
I can't wait for the creation kit to be released, and hopefully with it, some new hope for remaining issues!
Interesting so... Fixing sky without editing the meshes ? that's is an awesome approach Boris !... This method can fix a lot of 3d problems on a lot of tittles !
Interesting so... Fixing sky without editing the meshes ? that's is an awesome approach Boris !... This method can fix a lot of 3d problems on a lot of tittles !
Ideally I think we would want all these issues fixed with in-game assets so maybe once the CK is out, we can see about fixing the refractions without having to make the water opaque. Boris does an amazing job with this ENB stuff and I really appreciate the work he has done for us.
Ideally I think we would want all these issues fixed with in-game assets so maybe once the CK is out, we can see about fixing the refractions without having to make the water opaque. Boris does an amazing job with this ENB stuff and I really appreciate the work he has done for us.
[quote name='Arioch' date='27 December 2011 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1325034221' post='1347919']
Ideally I think we would want all these issues fixed with in-game assets so maybe once the CK is out, we can see about fixing the refractions without having to make the water opaque. Boris does an amazing job with this ENB stuff and I really appreciate the work he has done for us.
[/quote]
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
[quote name='Arioch' date='27 December 2011 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1325034221' post='1347919']
Ideally I think we would want all these issues fixed with in-game assets so maybe once the CK is out, we can see about fixing the refractions without having to make the water opaque. Boris does an amazing job with this ENB stuff and I really appreciate the work he has done for us.
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
[quote name='Osobari' date='27 December 2011 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1325040598' post='1347939']
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
[/quote]
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
[quote name='Osobari' date='27 December 2011 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1325040598' post='1347939']
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
[quote name='chiz' date='28 December 2011 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1325098544' post='1348232']
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
[/quote]
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 December 2011 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1325098544' post='1348232']
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
[quote name='Osobari' date='28 December 2011 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1325117645' post='1348385']
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
[/quote]
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
[quote name='Osobari' date='28 December 2011 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1325117645' post='1348385']
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 December 2011 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1325126980' post='1348455']
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
[/quote]
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
[quote name='chiz' date='28 December 2011 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1325126980' post='1348455']
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
[quote name='Osobari' date='28 December 2011 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1325134593' post='1348501']
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
[/quote]
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
[quote name='Osobari' date='28 December 2011 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1325134593' post='1348501']
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
[quote name='chiz' date='29 December 2011 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1325136632' post='1348510']
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
[/quote]
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
Oh, and a Virtual 3D mode would be nice, since it proves to be very useful in certain games like Crysis. You could probably buy a monitor with built-in 2D to 3D conversion, but I don't believe there are any monitors with that feature that are 3D Vision Ready; I've only seen them in non-proprietary displays.
[quote name='chiz' date='29 December 2011 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1325136632' post='1348510']
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
Oh, and a Virtual 3D mode would be nice, since it proves to be very useful in certain games like Crysis. You could probably buy a monitor with built-in 2D to 3D conversion, but I don't believe there are any monitors with that feature that are 3D Vision Ready; I've only seen them in non-proprietary displays.
[quote name='Osobari' date='29 December 2011 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1325139297' post='1348525']
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
[/quote]
Well those are probably two of the worst examples as both of those studios are quite possibly the biggest luddites in the industry. Never mind 3D, their graphics and game engines are generally way behind the times, yet they still happen to do 3D well by accident on occasion.
Dragon Age 1/2 are fine in 3D, only suffer the same problem as myriad others with 2D cursor, name plates etc. Same can be said for TOR. Bethesda doesn't do anything specific to support 3D, but the simple ability to toggle off their crosshair allows a good experience by using the 3D laser sight. Mass Effect 1 and 2 had issues similar to most older UE3 titles, but there's reason for optimism with ME3 if it uses a UE3 build after 3D Vision support was officially supported. Some of the best 3D Vision titles released in recent months have been built on UE3.
Now lets look at some of the signs indicating 3D stereo is the future with significant uptake:
[list]
[*]CryEngine 3 has native 3D stereo support, Crytek's own 2D+depth approach. Already implemented on both PC and consoles, natively.
[*]Battlefield 3 and all future Frost Bite 2 Engine games will support native stereo rendering. EA is heavily leveraging FB2 for all EA-developed titles.
[*]Unreal Engine 3, the premier licensed engine of the DX9/10 era on both the consoles and the PC now fully supports 3D Vision natively in its SDK.
[*]Games with in-game controls or native 3D stereo implementations are ever-increasing, like Starcraft 2, Avatar the game, Trine 1/2. Today I stumbled upon Dungeon Siege III with native 3D settings.
[*]Numerous titles that made the necessary changes to qualify for 3D Vision Ready status (all 3D Vision Ready games).
[*]Major MMOs that either have good 3D support natively or patch in support after the fact including WoW, Rift, Aion, FFXIV, LOTRO, TOR.
[*][b]Major AAA releases on the consoles[/b] with 3D stereo support, including Gears of War 3, Halo, Uncharted 3, Gran Turismo 5, Killzone 3, Batman Arkham City.
[/list]
The last bullet is the key imo. Major console releases have the budget to make 3D stereo integration seamless and once consumers get a taste of it, they're going to want more of it, the same way its happened in the PC market. Of course the difference is, the PC gaming community by itself isn't enough to drive the demand for better 3D support and content, but the console market clearly is.
Its just a matter of a major dev studio or publisher committing to 3D once, seeing the benefits, and then perpetuating best practices to support 3D in all of their future titles. Despite some of Todd Howard's comments on 3D in the past, I fully expect Elder Scrolls VI to be in 3D as a major selling point of the game....not so much for the sake of the PC, but for the consoles.
[quote]Oh, and a Virtual 3D mode would be nice, since it proves to be very useful in certain games like Crysis. You could probably buy a monitor with built-in 2D to 3D conversion, but I don't believe there are any monitors with that feature that are 3D Vision Ready; I've only seen them in non-proprietary displays. [/quote]
I wouldn't want any software or video processor-based auto-conversion, those look terrible and introduce even more input lag. I'd want something similar to DDD's that intercepts draw calls, estimates depth values, then injects new W values to correct depth in 3D as needed. But again, that'd be redundant since I already have that option while using 3D Vision as my primary solution, best of both worlds really, and only using Nvidia's 3D ecosystem.
But if you wanted this feature badly enough you could use it with any 3DTV Play HDTV with 2D to 3D conversion.
[quote name='Osobari' date='29 December 2011 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1325139297' post='1348525']
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
Well those are probably two of the worst examples as both of those studios are quite possibly the biggest luddites in the industry. Never mind 3D, their graphics and game engines are generally way behind the times, yet they still happen to do 3D well by accident on occasion.
Dragon Age 1/2 are fine in 3D, only suffer the same problem as myriad others with 2D cursor, name plates etc. Same can be said for TOR. Bethesda doesn't do anything specific to support 3D, but the simple ability to toggle off their crosshair allows a good experience by using the 3D laser sight. Mass Effect 1 and 2 had issues similar to most older UE3 titles, but there's reason for optimism with ME3 if it uses a UE3 build after 3D Vision support was officially supported. Some of the best 3D Vision titles released in recent months have been built on UE3.
Now lets look at some of the signs indicating 3D stereo is the future with significant uptake:
CryEngine 3 has native 3D stereo support, Crytek's own 2D+depth approach. Already implemented on both PC and consoles, natively.
Battlefield 3 and all future Frost Bite 2 Engine games will support native stereo rendering. EA is heavily leveraging FB2 for all EA-developed titles.
Unreal Engine 3, the premier licensed engine of the DX9/10 era on both the consoles and the PC now fully supports 3D Vision natively in its SDK.
Games with in-game controls or native 3D stereo implementations are ever-increasing, like Starcraft 2, Avatar the game, Trine 1/2. Today I stumbled upon Dungeon Siege III with native 3D settings.
Numerous titles that made the necessary changes to qualify for 3D Vision Ready status (all 3D Vision Ready games).
Major MMOs that either have good 3D support natively or patch in support after the fact including WoW, Rift, Aion, FFXIV, LOTRO, TOR.
Major AAA releases on the consoles with 3D stereo support, including Gears of War 3, Halo, Uncharted 3, Gran Turismo 5, Killzone 3, Batman Arkham City.
The last bullet is the key imo. Major console releases have the budget to make 3D stereo integration seamless and once consumers get a taste of it, they're going to want more of it, the same way its happened in the PC market. Of course the difference is, the PC gaming community by itself isn't enough to drive the demand for better 3D support and content, but the console market clearly is.
Its just a matter of a major dev studio or publisher committing to 3D once, seeing the benefits, and then perpetuating best practices to support 3D in all of their future titles. Despite some of Todd Howard's comments on 3D in the past, I fully expect Elder Scrolls VI to be in 3D as a major selling point of the game....not so much for the sake of the PC, but for the consoles.
Oh, and a Virtual 3D mode would be nice, since it proves to be very useful in certain games like Crysis. You could probably buy a monitor with built-in 2D to 3D conversion, but I don't believe there are any monitors with that feature that are 3D Vision Ready; I've only seen them in non-proprietary displays.
I wouldn't want any software or video processor-based auto-conversion, those look terrible and introduce even more input lag. I'd want something similar to DDD's that intercepts draw calls, estimates depth values, then injects new W values to correct depth in 3D as needed. But again, that'd be redundant since I already have that option while using 3D Vision as my primary solution, best of both worlds really, and only using Nvidia's 3D ecosystem.
But if you wanted this feature badly enough you could use it with any 3DTV Play HDTV with 2D to 3D conversion.
[attachment=30569:TESV03_50.jps]
[attachment=30569:TESV03_50.jps]
It appears to break the general colour of the game, but actually ADD AMBIENT OCCLUSION, to 3d mode.
Wondering if anyone else out there has tried this update?
It appears to break the general colour of the game, but actually ADD AMBIENT OCCLUSION, to 3d mode.
Wondering if anyone else out there has tried this update?
I just tried the new update, v_0101.zip of the antifreeze mod, and corresponding 3d sky and water fix, by Boris.
It appears to break the general colour of the game, but actually ADD AMBIENT OCCLUSION, to 3d mode.
Wondering if anyone else out there has tried this update?
[/quote]
0101 enables a lot of the other ENB Series shader and graphic enhancements where AntiFreeze is basically just performance/crash fixes. 0101 also enables Boris' own Ambient Occlusion which is different from Nvidia's, which is probably why it works in 3D. If you open up ENBseries.ini you can see all the different shader settings and change them if you like (just delete or comment them out), you'll also see his version of AO is flagged on as well: EnableAmbientOcclusion=true
I just tried the new update, v_0101.zip of the antifreeze mod, and corresponding 3d sky and water fix, by Boris.
It appears to break the general colour of the game, but actually ADD AMBIENT OCCLUSION, to 3d mode.
Wondering if anyone else out there has tried this update?
0101 enables a lot of the other ENB Series shader and graphic enhancements where AntiFreeze is basically just performance/crash fixes. 0101 also enables Boris' own Ambient Occlusion which is different from Nvidia's, which is probably why it works in 3D. If you open up ENBseries.ini you can see all the different shader settings and change them if you like (just delete or comment them out), you'll also see his version of AO is flagged on as well: EnableAmbientOcclusion=true
-=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
Doubled waters edge is improved globally, being replaced by what looks like a 'matt' black texture, distant water edges still show 'some' anomalies. At this point I would like to thank Boris, and VadersApp2 for cutting through the mess.
I also noticed that somewhere over a thousand people have downloaded the (IMO) defunct 'Dorkirt' fix of the Nexus.(Thanks for your help too Dorkirt). Hopefully they will find what they need through the trail of several weeks!
I can't wait for the creation kit to be released, and hopefully with it, some new hope for remaining issues!
Doubled waters edge is improved globally, being replaced by what looks like a 'matt' black texture, distant water edges still show 'some' anomalies. At this point I would like to thank Boris, and VadersApp2 for cutting through the mess.
I also noticed that somewhere over a thousand people have downloaded the (IMO) defunct 'Dorkirt' fix of the Nexus.(Thanks for your help too Dorkirt). Hopefully they will find what they need through the trail of several weeks!
I can't wait for the creation kit to be released, and hopefully with it, some new hope for remaining issues!
Ideally I think we would want all these issues fixed with in-game assets so maybe once the CK is out, we can see about fixing the refractions without having to make the water opaque. Boris does an amazing job with this ENB stuff and I really appreciate the work he has done for us.
[/quote]
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
Ideally I think we would want all these issues fixed with in-game assets so maybe once the CK is out, we can see about fixing the refractions without having to make the water opaque. Boris does an amazing job with this ENB stuff and I really appreciate the work he has done for us.
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
[/quote]
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
Is the water opaque in Boris's mod? I haven't actually seen it, but it would be kinda depressing if it's opaque.
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
-=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
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
[/quote]
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
Yes its opaque but its not nearly as depressing as the original water with messed up transparencies, depths and halos all over. If every game gave the option to turn off problematic post-process or shader effects, it'd fix a vast majority of the deal-breaking visuals in games that would be otherwise great in 3D Vision.
Also, there's still a few issues even with the latest 1.1 fix from Boris. I'm sure he's probably enjoying his holidays so we may not see anything from him for a bit, but try and provide feedback for him either on Skyrim Nexus or his own site: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4350
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
[/quote]
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
Are post-processing effects usually done on a GPU or CPU level? I'm just wondering if it would ever be possible for a GPU to blacklist certain effects when a game doesn't let you disable them in-game.
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
-=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
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
[/quote]
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
They're done by the GPU in intermediate frame buffers where multiple rendering passes apply various shader effects. The problem is these intermediate buffers and rendering passes are often done in 2D for performance reasons, so no Z coordinate attached to these effects. Nvidia's approach tries not to blacklist anything, they really push for an automatic 3D approach that relies on stereo heuristics but also rely on that Z coordinate for depth in order for their stereo heuristics to work. Instead, they provide some suggestions and workarounds to developers, but again, the developer has to implement them. But that's generally why some effects look like they're off when everything else looks fine.
Still, I have seen at least one example in the past where Nvidia was able to selectively render objects/assets in 2D/3D with StarCraft 2. The first profile they had rendered the HUD/UI and character portrait in 3D, they then updated it and made it all 2D instead, partly because the character portraits were rendered at an inconsistent depth relative to the world viewport. I think Nvidia could do more in this regard on a per title basis, maybe not to the extent of hand-tailoring like DDD does, but I just don't think Nvidia wants to commit to doing that by exposing the capabilities and setting a precedent. Personally I wish they just opened the settings up, told us how to use them, then let us experiment and create our own profiles, similar to how the community has taken to SLI and AA profiles with the help of excellent tools like coolbits, nHancer, Nvidia Inspector, etc.
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
[/quote]
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
NVIDIA should really consider trying to find a new solution that isn't so developer-dependent. DDD has been more consistent because you've got actual programmers going through each game and getting everything just right to the best of their ability, and it's even more open for the community so that they can make their own profiles. Of course, it's probably not possible for NVIDIA to do something so taxing, since they have so many other aspects of their company to monitor, whereas with DDD the 3D conversion is the entire point of their organization. Still, I'm hoping we see some huge improvement to 3D Vision in the future. In its current state, I can't honestly say it's truly worth the price of admission.
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
-=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
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
[/quote]
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
Oh, and a Virtual 3D mode would be nice, since it proves to be very useful in certain games like Crysis. You could probably buy a monitor with built-in 2D to 3D conversion, but I don't believe there are any monitors with that feature that are 3D Vision Ready; I've only seen them in non-proprietary displays.
Well, the easy-to-say fix, but not necessarily the easy-for-Nvidia fix would be for Nvidia to do a virtual mode 3D similar to DDD. Its still a trade-off though and not a magic bullet, you would most likely sacrifice performance and quality as those are already some major differences with Nvidia and DDD even now. Still, it'd be redundant for most Nvidia users since they can get this kind of flexibility by just using 3D Vision as their main solution and DDD as their backup.
Also, I think long-term Nvidia's approach is the better one and this problem will eventually take care of itself with the majority of games being corrected for stereo 3D by the developers. Devs are already starting to be more cogniscent of 3D stereo compatibility and I expect stereo 3D will become a defining feature once the next-gen consoles hit. Once that happens, DDD (and 3D Vision's autostereo driver for that matter) will cease to be relevant as a middleware except for very fringe cases, which is already the case for many 3D Vision users.
As for the price of admission, I don't really see the distinction against the alternatives. You still have to buy a 3D LCD/TV and glasses and I'm pretty sure the Nvidia bundles are comparably priced compared to the alternatives. Maybe the Samsung 3D LCDs have dropped recently in price but its still pretty comparable last I checked. I guess the main benefit of Nvidia's solution is that you can use all the competing middlewares with their hardware solutions instead of being tied to one or the other or having to use unofficial workarounds. In that case, being able to plug holes in support by using whichever solution worked best would be worth any premium on the price of admission, imo.
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
Oh, and a Virtual 3D mode would be nice, since it proves to be very useful in certain games like Crysis. You could probably buy a monitor with built-in 2D to 3D conversion, but I don't believe there are any monitors with that feature that are 3D Vision Ready; I've only seen them in non-proprietary displays.
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
[/quote]
Well those are probably two of the worst examples as both of those studios are quite possibly the biggest luddites in the industry. Never mind 3D, their graphics and game engines are generally way behind the times, yet they still happen to do 3D well by accident on occasion.
Dragon Age 1/2 are fine in 3D, only suffer the same problem as myriad others with 2D cursor, name plates etc. Same can be said for TOR. Bethesda doesn't do anything specific to support 3D, but the simple ability to toggle off their crosshair allows a good experience by using the 3D laser sight. Mass Effect 1 and 2 had issues similar to most older UE3 titles, but there's reason for optimism with ME3 if it uses a UE3 build after 3D Vision support was officially supported. Some of the best 3D Vision titles released in recent months have been built on UE3.
Now lets look at some of the signs indicating 3D stereo is the future with significant uptake:
[list]
[*]CryEngine 3 has native 3D stereo support, Crytek's own 2D+depth approach. Already implemented on both PC and consoles, natively.
[*]Battlefield 3 and all future Frost Bite 2 Engine games will support native stereo rendering. EA is heavily leveraging FB2 for all EA-developed titles.
[*]Unreal Engine 3, the premier licensed engine of the DX9/10 era on both the consoles and the PC now fully supports 3D Vision natively in its SDK.
[*]Games with in-game controls or native 3D stereo implementations are ever-increasing, like Starcraft 2, Avatar the game, Trine 1/2. Today I stumbled upon Dungeon Siege III with native 3D settings.
[*]Numerous titles that made the necessary changes to qualify for 3D Vision Ready status (all 3D Vision Ready games).
[*]Major MMOs that either have good 3D support natively or patch in support after the fact including WoW, Rift, Aion, FFXIV, LOTRO, TOR.
[*][b]Major AAA releases on the consoles[/b] with 3D stereo support, including Gears of War 3, Halo, Uncharted 3, Gran Turismo 5, Killzone 3, Batman Arkham City.
[/list]
The last bullet is the key imo. Major console releases have the budget to make 3D stereo integration seamless and once consumers get a taste of it, they're going to want more of it, the same way its happened in the PC market. Of course the difference is, the PC gaming community by itself isn't enough to drive the demand for better 3D support and content, but the console market clearly is.
Its just a matter of a major dev studio or publisher committing to 3D once, seeing the benefits, and then perpetuating best practices to support 3D in all of their future titles. Despite some of Todd Howard's comments on 3D in the past, I fully expect Elder Scrolls VI to be in 3D as a major selling point of the game....not so much for the sake of the PC, but for the consoles.
[quote]Oh, and a Virtual 3D mode would be nice, since it proves to be very useful in certain games like Crysis. You could probably buy a monitor with built-in 2D to 3D conversion, but I don't believe there are any monitors with that feature that are 3D Vision Ready; I've only seen them in non-proprietary displays. [/quote]
I wouldn't want any software or video processor-based auto-conversion, those look terrible and introduce even more input lag. I'd want something similar to DDD's that intercepts draw calls, estimates depth values, then injects new W values to correct depth in 3D as needed. But again, that'd be redundant since I already have that option while using 3D Vision as my primary solution, best of both worlds really, and only using Nvidia's 3D ecosystem.
But if you wanted this feature badly enough you could use it with any 3DTV Play HDTV with 2D to 3D conversion.
Doesn't really feel like developers are opening up to 3D. Bethesda is still a no-go, and I don't think any of BioWare's recent releases have been much better; Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 actually seem worse than their predecessors when it comes to 3D. It's a bit too soon to say for sure, but it really doesn't seem like native 3D support is growing any more popular.
Well those are probably two of the worst examples as both of those studios are quite possibly the biggest luddites in the industry. Never mind 3D, their graphics and game engines are generally way behind the times, yet they still happen to do 3D well by accident on occasion.
Dragon Age 1/2 are fine in 3D, only suffer the same problem as myriad others with 2D cursor, name plates etc. Same can be said for TOR. Bethesda doesn't do anything specific to support 3D, but the simple ability to toggle off their crosshair allows a good experience by using the 3D laser sight. Mass Effect 1 and 2 had issues similar to most older UE3 titles, but there's reason for optimism with ME3 if it uses a UE3 build after 3D Vision support was officially supported. Some of the best 3D Vision titles released in recent months have been built on UE3.
Now lets look at some of the signs indicating 3D stereo is the future with significant uptake:
The last bullet is the key imo. Major console releases have the budget to make 3D stereo integration seamless and once consumers get a taste of it, they're going to want more of it, the same way its happened in the PC market. Of course the difference is, the PC gaming community by itself isn't enough to drive the demand for better 3D support and content, but the console market clearly is.
Its just a matter of a major dev studio or publisher committing to 3D once, seeing the benefits, and then perpetuating best practices to support 3D in all of their future titles. Despite some of Todd Howard's comments on 3D in the past, I fully expect Elder Scrolls VI to be in 3D as a major selling point of the game....not so much for the sake of the PC, but for the consoles.
I wouldn't want any software or video processor-based auto-conversion, those look terrible and introduce even more input lag. I'd want something similar to DDD's that intercepts draw calls, estimates depth values, then injects new W values to correct depth in 3D as needed. But again, that'd be redundant since I already have that option while using 3D Vision as my primary solution, best of both worlds really, and only using Nvidia's 3D ecosystem.
But if you wanted this feature badly enough you could use it with any 3DTV Play HDTV with 2D to 3D conversion.
-=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