Just tried TriDef VR
  1 / 2    
Long time die hard 3D Vision user here...and now VR/VorpX user these past two years. After plenty of frustrations with the performance loss of both 3D Vision and Direct VR Vorpx enabled GTAV. I decided to give Tridef VR a chance...simply just to see if it would be somewhat of a semi VR/3D experience. So I just tried the trial version....ran GTAV in maxed settings without a hiccup. Little to no performance loss and the 3D image has no artifacts or issues. Played around with the screen size and distance to get a somewhat immersive semi VR feel and ended up enjoying the game for about 2 hours. For now this will be my go to method for GTAV until either...Nvidia actually released a 3D Vision bottleneck fix....or VorpX optimizes direct VR better to run GTAV with actual playable FPS...or Rockstar actually releases a fully optimized VR version of GTAV....in which i never see happening. Tridef VR is a 7 day trial and has a $20 annual sub which I really don't like...but hey atleast they are trying. So yea to some it up I got a semi VR but full 3D experience with little to no performance loss on maxxed settings in GTAV....which is impossible to run without huge fps loss with Vorpx or 3D Vision. It does indeed give more of an immersive feeling of presence inside the game than a 3D monitor Ill test some other games later!
Long time die hard 3D Vision user here...and now VR/VorpX user these past two years.

After plenty of frustrations with the performance loss of both 3D Vision and Direct VR Vorpx enabled GTAV.
I decided to give Tridef VR a chance...simply just to see if it would be somewhat of a semi VR/3D experience.

So I just tried the trial version....ran GTAV in maxed settings without a hiccup.
Little to no performance loss and the 3D image has no artifacts or issues.
Played around with the screen size and distance to get a somewhat immersive semi VR feel and ended up enjoying the game for about 2 hours.

For now this will be my go to method for GTAV until either...Nvidia actually released a 3D Vision bottleneck fix....or VorpX optimizes direct VR better to run GTAV with actual playable FPS...or Rockstar actually releases a fully optimized VR version of GTAV....in which i never see happening.

Tridef VR is a 7 day trial and has a $20 annual sub which I really don't like...but hey atleast they are trying.

So yea to some it up I got a semi VR but full 3D experience with little to no performance loss on maxxed settings in GTAV....which is impossible to run without huge fps loss with Vorpx or 3D Vision.

It does indeed give more of an immersive feeling of presence inside the game than a 3D monitor

Ill test some other games later!

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

#1
Posted 10/06/2017 01:57 PM   
Cool, I would give it a try if it was not a subscription type o license, but they lost me there...
Cool, I would give it a try if it was not a subscription type o license, but they lost me there...

EVGA GTX 1070 FTW
Motherboard MSI Z370 SLI PLUS
Processor i5-8600K @ 4.2 | Cooler SilverStone AR02
Corsair Vengeance 8GB 3000Mhz | Windows 10 Pro
SSD 240gb Kingston UV400 | 2x HDs 1TB RAID0 | 2x HD 2TB RAID1
TV LG Cinema 3D 49lb6200 | ACER EDID override | Oculus Rift CV1
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/J0hnnieW4lker
Screenshots: http://phereo.com/583b3a2f8884282d5d000007

#2
Posted 10/06/2017 02:13 PM   
[quote="J0hnnieW4ker"]Cool, I would give it a try if it was not a subscription type o license, but they lost me there...[/quote] There is a 7 day trial.....they don't ask for anything but an email address.
J0hnnieW4ker said:Cool, I would give it a try if it was not a subscription type o license, but they lost me there...


There is a 7 day trial.....they don't ask for anything but an email address.

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

#3
Posted 10/06/2017 02:21 PM   
I tried this too. The floating window is more cinema style but tridef is faster than vorpx in a few games. For me it didn't feel as immersive.
I tried this too. The floating window is more cinema style but tridef is faster than vorpx in a few games. For me it didn't feel as immersive.

#4
Posted 10/06/2017 05:20 PM   
Great to hear this, if this works well with Pimax 8k maybe I can finally retire my good old hmz-t1
Great to hear this, if this works well with Pimax 8k maybe I can finally retire my good old hmz-t1

All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com

#5
Posted 10/06/2017 06:27 PM   
I'm running GTAV in 1440p DSR ingame settings on max with MSAA off(doesn't work well with power 3d) Occulus Tray Tool SS 2.0 Little to no performance loss and the beautiful 3D image has no artifacts or issues that is impossible in Vorpx and 3D Vision
I'm running GTAV in 1440p DSR ingame settings on max with MSAA off(doesn't work well with power 3d) Occulus Tray Tool SS 2.0
Little to no performance loss and the beautiful 3D image has no artifacts or issues
that is impossible in Vorpx and 3D Vision

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

#6
Posted 10/06/2017 08:09 PM   
I don't like dishing out money either, but i think an annual sub is great and fair, especially only $20, thats a few pennies a day, otherwise i just don't see how they can survive because they have to continually update fixes. Glad you like it. Makes me wonder if they've solved some of their former performance issues in the last few years. I'll have to give it a try.
I don't like dishing out money either, but i think an annual sub is great and fair, especially only $20, thats a few pennies a day, otherwise i just don't see how they can survive because they have to continually update fixes. Glad you like it. Makes me wonder if they've solved some of their former performance issues in the last few years. I'll have to give it a try.

46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530

#7
Posted 10/06/2017 08:23 PM   
[quote="lou4612"]I'm running GTAV in 1440p DSR ingame settings on max with MSAA off(doesn't work well with power 3d) Occulus Tray Tool SS 2.0 Little to no performance loss and the beautiful 3D image has no artifacts or issues that is impossible in Vorpx and 3D Vision[/quote] But Power3D is fake 3D. If you run NVidia Compatibility Mode, you also will not get a performance problem in GTA5. There will be no artifacts, except for haloing around close objects. Still, IMO, this defeats the point. I've tried TriDef VR as well, and I found the performance to be unacceptable while using Standard 3D (GTX 980 and Rift). I'm personally not interested in playing anything in CM/Fake3D/Power3D. I also found it hard to get decent 3D settings that didn't cause eyestrain, but that might be because I'm not familiar with their controls. In the supported games I tried, their 3D was as good as HelixMod fixes, but fall pretty far behind in comparison to our DX11 fixes.
lou4612 said:I'm running GTAV in 1440p DSR ingame settings on max with MSAA off(doesn't work well with power 3d) Occulus Tray Tool SS 2.0
Little to no performance loss and the beautiful 3D image has no artifacts or issues
that is impossible in Vorpx and 3D Vision

But Power3D is fake 3D. If you run NVidia Compatibility Mode, you also will not get a performance problem in GTA5. There will be no artifacts, except for haloing around close objects. Still, IMO, this defeats the point.

I've tried TriDef VR as well, and I found the performance to be unacceptable while using Standard 3D (GTX 980 and Rift). I'm personally not interested in playing anything in CM/Fake3D/Power3D. I also found it hard to get decent 3D settings that didn't cause eyestrain, but that might be because I'm not familiar with their controls. In the supported games I tried, their 3D was as good as HelixMod fixes, but fall pretty far behind in comparison to our DX11 fixes.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#8
Posted 10/06/2017 10:30 PM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="lou4612"]I'm running GTAV in 1440p DSR ingame settings on max with MSAA off(doesn't work well with power 3d) Occulus Tray Tool SS 2.0 Little to no performance loss and the beautiful 3D image has no artifacts or issues that is impossible in Vorpx and 3D Vision[/quote] But Power3D is fake 3D. If you run NVidia Compatibility Mode, you also will not get a performance problem in GTA5. There will be no artifacts, except for haloing around close objects. Still, IMO, this defeats the point. I've tried TriDef VR as well, and I found the performance to be unacceptable while using Standard 3D (GTX 980 and Rift). I'm not interested in playing anything in CM/Fake3D/Power3D. I also found it hard to get decent 3D settings that didn't cause eyestrain, but that might be because I'm not familiar with their controls. In the supported games I tried, their 3D was as good as HelixMod fixes, but fall pretty far behind in comparison to our DX11 fixes. [/quote] Yea according to a ton of feedback Tridef VR seems to be optimized for 1080+ cards. Many have been saying the same about poor performance on anything less.
bo3b said:
lou4612 said:I'm running GTAV in 1440p DSR ingame settings on max with MSAA off(doesn't work well with power 3d) Occulus Tray Tool SS 2.0
Little to no performance loss and the beautiful 3D image has no artifacts or issues
that is impossible in Vorpx and 3D Vision

But Power3D is fake 3D. If you run NVidia Compatibility Mode, you also will not get a performance problem in GTA5. There will be no artifacts, except for haloing around close objects. Still, IMO, this defeats the point.

I've tried TriDef VR as well, and I found the performance to be unacceptable while using Standard 3D (GTX 980 and Rift). I'm not interested in playing anything in CM/Fake3D/Power3D. I also found it hard to get decent 3D settings that didn't cause eyestrain, but that might be because I'm not familiar with their controls. In the supported games I tried, their 3D was as good as HelixMod fixes, but fall pretty far behind in comparison to our DX11 fixes.





Yea according to a ton of feedback Tridef VR seems to be optimized for 1080+ cards.
Many have been saying the same about poor performance on anything less.

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

#9
Posted 10/07/2017 12:13 AM   
[quote="lou4612"]Yea according to a ton of feedback Tridef VR seems to be optimized for 1080+ cards. Many have been saying the same about poor performance on anything less.[/quote] Well, not too put too fine a point on it, but if it's only 'optimized' for 1080, that means they didn't do anything, and expect you to solve the problem by paying more money. From a software perspective anybody on other forums that are saying this are just wrong. There is no architectural difference between 9xx and 10xx generations for conventional games. This is classic justification for expensive purchases, not informed decisions. I do a lot of real performance testing, and I'm looking for answers, not justifications for my decisions. I'm willing to spend money if it matters, but I'm not going to waste money. Let's take two real examples here. First your GTA5 test is flawed. You are running fake3D in TriDef, and real3D in 3D Vision, and saying the performance is better. This comparison is invalid because real3D 3D Vision always takes 2x the performance because the image is drawn from the two eyes perspective. fake3D is a technique that draws the image once. It can be OK, but real3D is always better, the only real question is whether it performs well enough. In the GTA5 case, there is a 3 core limit that makes 3D Vision performance abysmally worse than normal. Usually we lose half the performance for the other eye, in GTA5 only we lose something like 80% because it becomes CPU bound. Second test is an old game I tried on Tridef VR, TheBall. This thing is ancient, and performs well on all hardware. On 3D Vision, I pull 60 fps always, no matter the effects. Target screen 1080p. On Tridef, this tanks to 28-35 fps as shown with their counter. Even the Rift headset frame rate drops below 90 to 45 (reprojection) part of the time. It's not great. These are for identical settings in the game, same game save. Back to back. Here is a performance graph showing them both back to back. You can see that the 3D Vision case does not stress the video card particularly, running about half of usage while maintaining a smooth 60 fps. In the Tridef case, it's topping out the GPU mostly, using every resource. This leads to capping the frame rate at half of 3D Vision. It's not a memory problem, the computer has 16G, the video card 8G. So yeah, I could throw money at it, but this is poorly optimized. The drawing to the headset, which is literally a single blit is taking half of the GPU? If my hardware is shitty and I should just join the big boy club, then why can I play Raw Data on high settings on the same computer? If you truly believe that it is better optimized, please do a test like I did here, and show me GPU usage back to back of 3D Vision versus Tridef. Numbers talk. I'm willing to be convinced. [img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/73811/[/img]
lou4612 said:Yea according to a ton of feedback Tridef VR seems to be optimized for 1080+ cards.
Many have been saying the same about poor performance on anything less.

Well, not too put too fine a point on it, but if it's only 'optimized' for 1080, that means they didn't do anything, and expect you to solve the problem by paying more money.

From a software perspective anybody on other forums that are saying this are just wrong. There is no architectural difference between 9xx and 10xx generations for conventional games. This is classic justification for expensive purchases, not informed decisions. I do a lot of real performance testing, and I'm looking for answers, not justifications for my decisions. I'm willing to spend money if it matters, but I'm not going to waste money.


Let's take two real examples here.

First your GTA5 test is flawed. You are running fake3D in TriDef, and real3D in 3D Vision, and saying the performance is better. This comparison is invalid because real3D 3D Vision always takes 2x the performance because the image is drawn from the two eyes perspective. fake3D is a technique that draws the image once. It can be OK, but real3D is always better, the only real question is whether it performs well enough.

In the GTA5 case, there is a 3 core limit that makes 3D Vision performance abysmally worse than normal. Usually we lose half the performance for the other eye, in GTA5 only we lose something like 80% because it becomes CPU bound.


Second test is an old game I tried on Tridef VR, TheBall. This thing is ancient, and performs well on all hardware. On 3D Vision, I pull 60 fps always, no matter the effects. Target screen 1080p.

On Tridef, this tanks to 28-35 fps as shown with their counter. Even the Rift headset frame rate drops below 90 to 45 (reprojection) part of the time. It's not great.

These are for identical settings in the game, same game save. Back to back.


Here is a performance graph showing them both back to back. You can see that the 3D Vision case does not stress the video card particularly, running about half of usage while maintaining a smooth 60 fps.

In the Tridef case, it's topping out the GPU mostly, using every resource. This leads to capping the frame rate at half of 3D Vision. It's not a memory problem, the computer has 16G, the video card 8G.

So yeah, I could throw money at it, but this is poorly optimized. The drawing to the headset, which is literally a single blit is taking half of the GPU? If my hardware is shitty and I should just join the big boy club, then why can I play Raw Data on high settings on the same computer?


If you truly believe that it is better optimized, please do a test like I did here, and show me GPU usage back to back of 3D Vision versus Tridef. Numbers talk. I'm willing to be convinced.

Image
Attachments

TheBall_perf.PNG

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#10
Posted 10/07/2017 08:02 AM   
With some old and new games which have official real 3D Tridef profiles (or no profiles), 3D Texture Copy option must be disabled in Tridef settings while in game for much better performance. I didn't try The Ball but performance hit may be related to this option (it's in the Performance section). The games I tried didn't have any graphical issues after this setting is disabled, but performance increase was great. But there's a chance that some games may have issues while this setting is disabled. Edit: Tried The ball and performance increased greatly after disabling Texture Copy option.
With some old and new games which have official real 3D Tridef profiles (or no profiles), 3D Texture Copy option must be disabled in Tridef settings while in game for much better performance.

I didn't try The Ball but performance hit may be related to this option (it's in the Performance section).

The games I tried didn't have any graphical issues after this setting is disabled, but performance increase was great. But there's a chance that some games may have issues while this setting is disabled.


Edit: Tried The ball and performance increased greatly after disabling Texture Copy option.

Asus Deluxe Gen3, Core i7 2700k@4.5Ghz, GTX 1080Ti, 16 GB RAM, Win 7 64bit
Samsung Pro 250 GB SSD, 4 TB WD Black (games)
Benq XL2720Z

#11
Posted 10/07/2017 11:27 AM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="lou4612"]Yea according to a ton of feedback Tridef VR seems to be optimized for 1080+ cards. Many have been saying the same about poor performance on anything less.[/quote] Well, not too put too fine a point on it, but if it's only 'optimized' for 1080, that means they didn't do anything, and expect you to solve the problem by paying more money. From a software perspective anybody on other forums that are saying this are just wrong. There is no architectural difference between 9xx and 10xx generations for conventional games. This is classic justification for expensive purchases, not informed decisions. I do a lot of real performance testing, and I'm looking for answers, not justifications for my decisions. I'm willing to spend money if it matters, but I'm not going to waste money. Let's take two real examples here. First your GTA5 test is flawed. You are running fake3D in TriDef, and real3D in 3D Vision, and saying the performance is better. This comparison is invalid because real3D 3D Vision always takes 2x the performance because the image is drawn from the two eyes perspective. fake3D is a technique that draws the image once. It can be OK, but real3D is always better, the only real question is whether it performs well enough. In the GTA5 case, there is a 3 core limit that makes 3D Vision performance abysmally worse than normal. Usually we lose half the performance for the other eye, in GTA5 only we lose something like 80% because it becomes CPU bound. Second test is an old game I tried on Tridef VR, TheBall. This thing is ancient, and performs well on all hardware. On 3D Vision, I pull 60 fps always, no matter the effects. Target screen 1080p. On Tridef, this tanks to 28-35 fps as shown with their counter. Even the Rift headset frame rate drops below 90 to 45 (reprojection) part of the time. It's not great. These are for identical settings in the game, same game save. Back to back. Here is a performance graph showing them both back to back. You can see that the 3D Vision case does not stress the video card particularly, running about half of usage while maintaining a smooth 60 fps. In the Tridef case, it's topping out the GPU mostly, using every resource. This leads to capping the frame rate at half of 3D Vision. It's not a memory problem, the computer has 16G, the video card 8G. So yeah, I could throw money at it, but this is poorly optimized. The drawing to the headset, which is literally a single blit is taking half of the GPU? If my hardware is shitty and I should just join the big boy club, then why can I play Raw Data on high settings on the same computer? If you truly believe that it is better optimized, please do a test like I did here, and show me GPU usage back to back of 3D Vision versus Tridef. Numbers talk. I'm willing to be convinced. [img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/73811/[/img][/quote] The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling. Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor. Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.
bo3b said:
lou4612 said:Yea according to a ton of feedback Tridef VR seems to be optimized for 1080+ cards.
Many have been saying the same about poor performance on anything less.

Well, not too put too fine a point on it, but if it's only 'optimized' for 1080, that means they didn't do anything, and expect you to solve the problem by paying more money.

From a software perspective anybody on other forums that are saying this are just wrong. There is no architectural difference between 9xx and 10xx generations for conventional games. This is classic justification for expensive purchases, not informed decisions. I do a lot of real performance testing, and I'm looking for answers, not justifications for my decisions. I'm willing to spend money if it matters, but I'm not going to waste money.


Let's take two real examples here.

First your GTA5 test is flawed. You are running fake3D in TriDef, and real3D in 3D Vision, and saying the performance is better. This comparison is invalid because real3D 3D Vision always takes 2x the performance because the image is drawn from the two eyes perspective. fake3D is a technique that draws the image once. It can be OK, but real3D is always better, the only real question is whether it performs well enough.

In the GTA5 case, there is a 3 core limit that makes 3D Vision performance abysmally worse than normal. Usually we lose half the performance for the other eye, in GTA5 only we lose something like 80% because it becomes CPU bound.


Second test is an old game I tried on Tridef VR, TheBall. This thing is ancient, and performs well on all hardware. On 3D Vision, I pull 60 fps always, no matter the effects. Target screen 1080p.

On Tridef, this tanks to 28-35 fps as shown with their counter. Even the Rift headset frame rate drops below 90 to 45 (reprojection) part of the time. It's not great.

These are for identical settings in the game, same game save. Back to back.


Here is a performance graph showing them both back to back. You can see that the 3D Vision case does not stress the video card particularly, running about half of usage while maintaining a smooth 60 fps.

In the Tridef case, it's topping out the GPU mostly, using every resource. This leads to capping the frame rate at half of 3D Vision. It's not a memory problem, the computer has 16G, the video card 8G.

So yeah, I could throw money at it, but this is poorly optimized. The drawing to the headset, which is literally a single blit is taking half of the GPU? If my hardware is shitty and I should just join the big boy club, then why can I play Raw Data on high settings on the same computer?


If you truly believe that it is better optimized, please do a test like I did here, and show me GPU usage back to back of 3D Vision versus Tridef. Numbers talk. I'm willing to be convinced.

Image


The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling.
Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor.
Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.

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

#12
Posted 10/07/2017 01:32 PM   
[quote="lou4612"]The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling. Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor. Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.[/quote]I wanted to come back to this to understand your point. Because I don't understand how you'd want to game on a super-low-res virtual screen in CM, over a high-res monitor with true-3D. In a different thread it seems like you are saying that it's the sense of scale that matters to you more than anything. The reason I'd like to understand this is because I'm building something similar to TriDef, but I think will have better supersampling and better performance. Maybe, probably. Understanding what might drive someone to use a virtual screen will help me build something worthwhile. I've found the TriDef VR experience to be completely underwhelming compared to my much higher resolution 720p projector on the wall at 10' diagonal. But maybe that is the crux of why it's so much better, the sense of scale.
lou4612 said:The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling.
Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor.
Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.
I wanted to come back to this to understand your point. Because I don't understand how you'd want to game on a super-low-res virtual screen in CM, over a high-res monitor with true-3D.

In a different thread it seems like you are saying that it's the sense of scale that matters to you more than anything.

The reason I'd like to understand this is because I'm building something similar to TriDef, but I think will have better supersampling and better performance. Maybe, probably. Understanding what might drive someone to use a virtual screen will help me build something worthwhile.


I've found the TriDef VR experience to be completely underwhelming compared to my much higher resolution 720p projector on the wall at 10' diagonal. But maybe that is the crux of why it's so much better, the sense of scale.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#13
Posted 10/26/2017 05:04 PM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="lou4612"]The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling. Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor. Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.[/quote]I wanted to come back to this to understand your point. Because I don't understand how you'd want to game on a super-low-res virtual screen in CM, over a high-res monitor with true-3D. In a different thread it seems like you are saying that it's the sense of scale that matters to you more than anything. The reason I'd like to understand this is because I'm building something similar to TriDef, but I think will have better supersampling and better performance. Maybe, probably. Understanding what might drive someone to use a virtual screen will help me build something worthwhile. I've found the TriDef VR experience to be completely underwhelming compared to my much higher resolution 720p projector on the wall at 10' diagonal. But maybe that is the crux of why it's so much better, the sense of scale. [/quote] Yes definitely the sense of scale and I just feel so much more immersed in the GTA V world....and driving feels more immersive also than doing it through a monitor. The VR virtual screen is up close to my eyes and I feel like I'm looking more into the world convergence wise. I mean no 3d pop out...but the position with my eyes and the screen feels semi VR. As for a lower res yes....but Ill take scale and feeling of presence immersion over image quality anyday. Also you are right on the power 3d crap....ITS CRAP As for 3D Vision i just feel 27 inch display is now too small for immersion like someone said in another thread Its like being teased with full 3d through a postcard
bo3b said:
lou4612 said:The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling.
Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor.
Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.
I wanted to come back to this to understand your point. Because I don't understand how you'd want to game on a super-low-res virtual screen in CM, over a high-res monitor with true-3D.

In a different thread it seems like you are saying that it's the sense of scale that matters to you more than anything.

The reason I'd like to understand this is because I'm building something similar to TriDef, but I think will have better supersampling and better performance. Maybe, probably. Understanding what might drive someone to use a virtual screen will help me build something worthwhile.


I've found the TriDef VR experience to be completely underwhelming compared to my much higher resolution 720p projector on the wall at 10' diagonal. But maybe that is the crux of why it's so much better, the sense of scale.


Yes definitely the sense of scale and I just feel so much more immersed in the GTA V world....and driving feels more immersive also than doing it through a monitor. The VR virtual screen is up close to my eyes and I feel like I'm looking more into the world convergence wise. I mean no 3d pop out...but the position with my eyes and the screen feels semi VR.
As for a lower res yes....but Ill take scale and feeling of presence immersion over image quality anyday.
Also you are right on the power 3d crap....ITS CRAP

As for 3D Vision i just feel 27 inch display is now too small for immersion like someone said in another thread
Its like being teased with full 3d through a postcard

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

#14
Posted 10/27/2017 01:47 AM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="lou4612"]The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling. Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor. Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.[/quote]I wanted to come back to this to understand your point. Because I don't understand how you'd want to game on a super-low-res virtual screen in CM, over a high-res monitor with true-3D. In a different thread it seems like you are saying that it's the sense of scale that matters to you more than anything. The reason I'd like to understand this is because I'm building something similar to TriDef, but I think will have better supersampling and better performance. Maybe, probably. Understanding what might drive someone to use a virtual screen will help me build something worthwhile. I've found the TriDef VR experience to be completely underwhelming compared to my much higher resolution 720p projector on the wall at 10' diagonal. But maybe that is the crux of why it's so much better, the sense of scale. [/quote] Im curious of why you found the Tridef VR experience underwhelming. I just got an even better experience with it running max DSR windowed resolution in GTAV with 2X MSAA And using Natural Vision Remastered mod...my image is absolutely gorgeous and immersive. Especially on rainy night weather and volumetric lighting on.
bo3b said:
lou4612 said:The fake 3D looks good on GTAV inside my HMD with Occulus Tray Tool Supersampling.
Having a blast ingame and I still feel more immersed in it through this semi VR experience than a monitor.
Until something better comes along Ill gladly throw them $20 to use this for now.
I wanted to come back to this to understand your point. Because I don't understand how you'd want to game on a super-low-res virtual screen in CM, over a high-res monitor with true-3D.

In a different thread it seems like you are saying that it's the sense of scale that matters to you more than anything.

The reason I'd like to understand this is because I'm building something similar to TriDef, but I think will have better supersampling and better performance. Maybe, probably. Understanding what might drive someone to use a virtual screen will help me build something worthwhile.


I've found the TriDef VR experience to be completely underwhelming compared to my much higher resolution 720p projector on the wall at 10' diagonal. But maybe that is the crux of why it's so much better, the sense of scale.


Im curious of why you found the Tridef VR experience underwhelming.
I just got an even better experience with it running max DSR windowed resolution in GTAV with 2X MSAA
And using Natural Vision Remastered mod...my image is absolutely gorgeous and immersive.
Especially on rainy night weather and volumetric lighting on.

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

#15
Posted 11/05/2017 01:54 PM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top