So thats how it happened then! About a year ago I was playing CoD4 with iz3D and was amazed that I could hold the gun up to my eye and the other eye wouldn't show it.
Then I updated iz3D and tried to show some friends but CoD4 no longer did it and I never found out why.
So thats how it happened then! About a year ago I was playing CoD4 with iz3D and was amazed that I could hold the gun up to my eye and the other eye wouldn't show it.
Then I updated iz3D and tried to show some friends but CoD4 no longer did it and I never found out why.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]First[/b] of all, you don't have to keep your left eye closed all the time, only when you're shooting. At that moment there is little reason to be appreciating the 3D view.
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with [b]both eyes open that's fine they can still do it[/b], there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.[/quote]
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Second[/b], there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They'[b]re already at the right depth[/b].
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.[/quote]
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.[/quote]
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Third[/b], I believe the lack of interest is just [b]missinformation[/b]. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, [b]all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed[/b].
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.[/quote]
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']First of all, you don't have to keep your left eye closed all the time, only when you're shooting. At that moment there is little reason to be appreciating the 3D view.
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with both eyes open that's fine they can still do it, there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Second, there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They're already at the right depth.
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Third, I believe the lack of interest is just missinformation. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed.
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]First[/b] of all, you don't have to keep your left eye closed all the time, only when you're shooting. At that moment there is little reason to be appreciating the 3D view.
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with [b]both eyes open that's fine they can still do it[/b], there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.[/quote]
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Second[/b], there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They'[b]re already at the right depth[/b].
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.[/quote]
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.[/quote]
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Third[/b], I believe the lack of interest is just [b]missinformation[/b]. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, [b]all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed[/b].
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.[/quote]
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']First of all, you don't have to keep your left eye closed all the time, only when you're shooting. At that moment there is little reason to be appreciating the 3D view.
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with both eyes open that's fine they can still do it, there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Second, there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They're already at the right depth.
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Third, I believe the lack of interest is just missinformation. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed.
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "[i]natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)[/i]" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
[quote]If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.[/quote]
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, for me that defeats the purpose of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "[i]natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)[/i]" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
[quote]If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.[/quote]
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, for me that defeats the purpose of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112191' date='Sep 2 2010, 08:54 PM']Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "[i]natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)[/i]" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)[/quote]
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
[quote]I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.[/quote]
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
[quote]BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).[/quote]
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
[quote]Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.[/quote]
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
[quote]This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.[/quote]
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112191' date='Sep 2 2010, 08:54 PM']Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, for me that defeats the purpose of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112191' date='Sep 2 2010, 08:54 PM']Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "[i]natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)[/i]" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)[/quote]
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
[quote]I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.[/quote]
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
[quote]BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).[/quote]
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
[quote]Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.[/quote]
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
[quote]This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.[/quote]
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112191' date='Sep 2 2010, 08:54 PM']Most of what you mention as "fact" it's just a matter of preference, you prefer what you call the "natural (relative to non-S3D gaming)" [weird definition for natural] while I prefer the real-life-natural of closing one eye (or having double sight if you don't). Yes at that moment you have a 2D image and for you that "wholy defeats the puspose of S3D". For me the purpose of S3D is to add another level of realism to increase the immersion factor of the game. That's why I also prefer Iron Sights to Crosshairs but in either case I prefer to have it rendered at Real Life depth not at full depth. (Think of America's Army, the game)
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, for me that defeats the purpose of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
[quote]The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets[/quote]
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
[quote]No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution[/quote]
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
[quote]after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there[/quote]
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
[quote]The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets[/quote]
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
[quote]No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution[/quote]
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
[quote]after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there[/quote]
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.[/quote]
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
[quote]So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.[/quote]
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
You can try to open this up with your Iz3D solution and see how it comes out: [url="http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.com/self.aspx/Public/3D%20Vision%20Screenshots/conviction%5E_game01%5E_50.jps"]http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.co...ame01%5E_50.jps[/url]
[quote]Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.[/quote]
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
[quote]Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.[/quote]
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.[/quote]
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
[quote]So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.[/quote]
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
You can try to open this up with your Iz3D solution and see how it comes out: [url="http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.com/self.aspx/Public/3D%20Vision%20Screenshots/conviction%5E_game01%5E_50.jps"]http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.co...ame01%5E_50.jps[/url]
[quote]Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.[/quote]
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
[quote]Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.[/quote]
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
Abe, you are absolutely right that this is an effect to produce a more realistic 3D Vision experience for you and me and many more people that like to aim down the sight in FPS's. I really only play Arma2 series now and the only problem with 3D Vision in that game are the sights and scopes. The convergence is way out and is unplayable. Please Nvidia, if you're reading this, can you by any chance implement these supposedly easy solutions as mentioned in this topic for us gamers that want to add more realism to our games?
[quote]Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many.[/quote]
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.
Abe, you are absolutely right that this is an effect to produce a more realistic 3D Vision experience for you and me and many more people that like to aim down the sight in FPS's. I really only play Arma2 series now and the only problem with 3D Vision in that game are the sights and scopes. The convergence is way out and is unplayable. Please Nvidia, if you're reading this, can you by any chance implement these supposedly easy solutions as mentioned in this topic for us gamers that want to add more realism to our games?
Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many.
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.
Abe, you are absolutely right that this is an effect to produce a more realistic 3D Vision experience for you and me and many more people that like to aim down the sight in FPS's. I really only play Arma2 series now and the only problem with 3D Vision in that game are the sights and scopes. The convergence is way out and is unplayable. Please Nvidia, if you're reading this, can you by any chance implement these supposedly easy solutions as mentioned in this topic for us gamers that want to add more realism to our games?
[quote]Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many.[/quote]
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.
Abe, you are absolutely right that this is an effect to produce a more realistic 3D Vision experience for you and me and many more people that like to aim down the sight in FPS's. I really only play Arma2 series now and the only problem with 3D Vision in that game are the sights and scopes. The convergence is way out and is unplayable. Please Nvidia, if you're reading this, can you by any chance implement these supposedly easy solutions as mentioned in this topic for us gamers that want to add more realism to our games?
Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many.
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.
Then I updated iz3D and tried to show some friends but CoD4 no longer did it and I never found out why.
Left/Right Shift FTW.
Now excuse me guys as I go and install iz3D :P
Then I updated iz3D and tried to show some friends but CoD4 no longer did it and I never found out why.
Left/Right Shift FTW.
Now excuse me guys as I go and install iz3D :P
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with [b]both eyes open that's fine they can still do it[/b], there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.[/quote]
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Second[/b], there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They'[b]re already at the right depth[/b].
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.[/quote]
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.[/quote]
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Third[/b], I believe the lack of interest is just [b]missinformation[/b]. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, [b]all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed[/b].
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.[/quote]
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with both eyes open that's fine they can still do it, there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Second, there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They're already at the right depth.
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Third, I believe the lack of interest is just missinformation. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed.
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
-=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
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with [b]both eyes open that's fine they can still do it[/b], there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.[/quote]
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Second[/b], there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They'[b]re already at the right depth[/b].
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.[/quote]
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.[/quote]
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM'][b]Third[/b], I believe the lack of interest is just [b]missinformation[/b]. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, [b]all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed[/b].
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.[/quote]
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
If, like you say, most people prefer to shoot with both eyes open that's fine they can still do it, there will be two crosshairs but you can aim correctly with one of them, tipically the one on your dominant eye.
Uh, sorry I'd disagree. The whole point of 3D Vision is to see objects in 3D with both eyes. Having to close 1 eye in order to aim and see objects in 2D as a result defeats this purpose. Seeing two crosshairs as you describe has to be the worst solution possible as that's essentially the current problem with ghosting and crosstalk to begin with. Also, you're going to have momentary issues while you close your eye if its not perfectly synchronized with aiming down sights, with bothersome artifacts very similar to current problems with lighting/shadows rendering only in 1 eye, a common complaint.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Second, there is no way that iron sights can be "simply render[ed] ... at the right depth" They're already at the right depth.
They're not like a lasersight that can be placed on top of the target.
Wrong, one of the major problems with ironsights is that they are not properly rendered so when you line up the ironsights so that they're focused in 3D, the objects you're aiming at behind them break with either too much or too little separation. Or if lined up properly with ironsights, the 3D crosshair is broken once you come out of ADS. COD4 and 6 are good examples of this at higher depth levels.
The proper solution would be to make sure the offsets and depths are consistent across various aspect/point of view changes/camera angles, which is not the case with many games.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']As for crosshairs they are an artifical mechanism used to simplify targetiing, as such they can be placed anywhere but placing it on top of the target is even more artificial but I guess aceptable in some cases. That's why they call it lasersight.
You still have that issue with telescopic sights.
You don't need lasersights that essentially adjust depth dynamically like ray-tracing to accomplish proper perspective and alignment in 3D, you just need to have the crosshairs rendered far enough away from your camera position so that you aren't seeing double image in the near-field. This is about 6' or so IRL, a simple demonstration of this is if you place an object like a pen upright and then try to focus on the object behind the tip of the pen from a foot or two away. You will see 2 images of the pen when you try to focus beyond it. Now move back about 6 feet and focus on the object behind it. Both the pen and the object should be in focus. That's all devs have to do, render crosshairs at that minimum depth away from the camera and everything lines up perfect with both eyes in S3D. Then you only need to adjust a dynamic crosshair for objects that are between the crosshair's depth and the camera. There's plenty of games that do this perfectly like Borderlands and BFBC2 with ADS and telescopic sights. We need more of this, not campy workarounds that require you to remember to actually close your eye while aiming just so you can get a 2D image.
[quote name='Abe' post='1111809' date='Sep 2 2010, 04:05 AM']Third, I believe the lack of interest is just missinformation. Most people believe that the only solution is to fix each and every game because that's what they're doing. If instead they implemented the right solution, which is very easy to do BTW, all FPS games including legacy ones would become instantly playable without any modification needed.
There are many many legacy games that are never going to be "fixed" and it's a shame because they look great in stereo 3D. It is very frustrating to not be able to play them in stereo 3D just because of this little flaw in the drivers, specially considering how easy it is to fix, it's something that would take literally minutes to fix.
I just can't believe that many gamers that like to play in stereo 3D don't care at all about being able to play their legacy games in stereo 3D.
Again, I think once you mention "close one eye IRL" people who actually have experience with 3D Vision realize this is cumbersome, unnatural (relative to non-S3D gaming), inconsistent and results in an image that is 2D and wholly defeats the purpose of 3D. For me its not about reality, its about suspended disbelief as 3D effects are often larger than life with a synthetic quality you can't find IRL. You asked why people aren't doing cartwheels over the thought of constantly trying to remember to close one eye in some games that implement this workaround and I gave you some reasons. Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many. If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.
Also, there are ways around crosshairs/cursors being rendered in 2D or at screen-depth, its simply a matter of minimizing depth and adjusting convergence so that the everything between the crosshairs and you is a pop-out effect. Works in most any legacy game just fine, only once you start adjusting Depth do things start to break because of the inconsistencies in which devs apply their depth to game objects and assets.
-=HeliX=- Mod 3DV Game Fixes
My 3D Vision Games List Ratings
Intel Core i7 5930K @4.5GHz | Gigabyte X99 Gaming 5 | Win10 x64 Pro | Corsair H105
Nvidia GeForce Titan X SLI Hybrid | ROG Swift PG278Q 144Hz + 3D Vision/G-Sync | 32GB Adata DDR4 2666
Intel Samsung 950Pro SSD | Samsung EVO 4x1 RAID 0 |
Yamaha VX-677 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1 | LG Blu-Ray
Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G710/G502/G27 | Corsair Air 540 | EVGA P2-1200W
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
[quote]If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.[/quote]
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, for me that defeats the purpose of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
[quote]If I were given the choice and knew beforehand that this was the solution to aiming in FPS, I would not buy 3D Vision, plain and simple.[/quote]
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, for me that defeats the purpose of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.
BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).
Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.
This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
[quote]I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.[/quote]
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
[quote]BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).[/quote]
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
[quote]Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.[/quote]
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
[quote]This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.[/quote]
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
-=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
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
[quote]I find it contradictory that you like "3D effects ... larger than life " and your wokaround for legacy games is reducing depth which reduces greatly the S3D effect, [b]for me that defeats the purpose[/b] of S3D. I like to have both high depth and popout objects (the weapons), not just popouts.[/quote]
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
[quote]BTW, I don't see why you feel the need to put down the solution I'm proposing as a "campy workaround". It's not a workaround at all but a solution for many people who like realism like me. If you don't like it you don't have to use it, no one is forcing you and if this solution is implemented it doesn't affect you in any negative way (quite the opposite, even if you can't appreciate it now).[/quote]
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
[quote]Neither you nor I can claim to know what most people prefer but it doesn't matter: the two solutions are not mutually exclusive. But while the solution you like requires a lot of effort from many developers and there are going to be inconsistencies, the solution I propose is simple, elegant, only needs to be implemented once and would satisfy a lot of people like me who are looking for realism and/or like to play with legacy games at full depth.[/quote]
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
[quote]This post is not about which solution is better, like I said before that's a matter of preference. Both of them can and should be implemented whenever possible because they actually complement each other as this debate clearly shows:
- Fixing every single game: for people who prefer shooting accurately with both eyes open.
- Fixing drivers: for legacy games and people who prefer realism.
That's exactly how I feel and that is the reason holding me back from buying 3D Vision and an NVidia card.
But my point is there is no reason why both solutions shouldn't be implemented. Right now your solution is implemented in some games and the solution I need (and many like me) is not implemented in NVidia's 3D Vision.[/quote]
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
No quite the contrary you're the one taking issue with what is clearly a matter of preference, I simply stated factual reasons for why people weren't doing backflips for what YOUR preferences and opinions about what S3D should be.
As for being contradictory, how so? Do you close one eye when you play an FPS in 2D/non-S3D? Most people don't, so having to close an eye is unnatural as most will view normal 2D with both eyes as there is no need to close one to aim accurately. While you may claim "realism" and "immersion", the fact of the matter is most people who play video games have never fired a gun IRL much less an airsoft gun, so 2D aiming with both eyes would be more realistic and natural for those users. Same way for S3D, the goal of S3D is to mimic the 2D game experience with the added 3rd dimension, depth...not to regress back to 2D just to aim properly with single-eye artifacts if you forget to squint when you oh so realistically hit RMB to aim down sights....
Its just another ends to accomplish similar to what I described when devs don't properly implement depth with their crosshairs or iron sights, and while its not ideal, its still infinitely better than playing in 2D or having to constantly aim with double-sights or mis-aligned sights, or in 2D with one eye closed.
I didn't go out of my way to put the solution down, I only replied with an honest answer after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there. So yes, I would rather have Nvidia and devs spend their time and efforts working on getting properly aligned 3D assets at the proper depth with both eyes open, because its a vastly superior solution imo. Look at any game that properly implements 3D crosshair/ironsights and compare it to the solution you're advocating and its a no-brainer which solution is better.
No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution. The solution I proposed doesn't take a lot of effort by developers, it simply requires them to render their game assets at proper relative 3D depths. Obviously it helps if they have a 3D kit available as it makes calibrating that much easier, but these guys learned to render in 3D, that's all we're asking of them. We've seen numerous games easily patch and fix their 3D cursors/ironsights and just as easily patch and break them, so it really doesn't take more than a bit of QA to ensure consistency from all their different camera/gun angles.
The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets. I'm not even sure that's possible on their end without significant work. They can choose to render certain objects in S3D or in 2D, but I'm not sure they can apply different offsets in 3D to different objects at different depths.
And I don't disagree with your point that more options and more solutions are better, my issue was with you making it sound like it was the clear and obvious solution that everyone should want and that we were crazy for not wanting it. If they implemented this tomorrow, I would never use it, plain and simple. I'd stick to minimum depth and high convergence which works great for just about every game I've tried that has issues crosshairs/icons rendered in 2D or in 3D at screen-depth.
-=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
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
[quote]The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets[/quote]
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
[quote]No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution[/quote]
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
[quote]after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there[/quote]
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
[quote]The solution you suggest is actually much more intensive and similarly, much less realistic because it places the emphasis on Nvidia to go back and re-write all their profiles for legacy games and in many cases, selectively render various assets at different stereo settings and offsets[/quote]
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
[quote]No, I can definitively say anyone who is familiar with S3D would prefer a solution that allowed properly aligned S3D viewing with both eyes open rather than a half-3D half-2D with one eye closed solution[/quote]
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
[quote]after you tried forcing it down everyone's throats as if WE were the ones who were crazy for not doing somersaults for this campy workaround when there's clearly better options out there[/quote]
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time respond to my posts.
When you say this
That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.
Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.
Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.[/quote]
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
[quote]So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.[/quote]
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
You can try to open this up with your Iz3D solution and see how it comes out: [url="http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.com/self.aspx/Public/3D%20Vision%20Screenshots/conviction%5E_game01%5E_50.jps"]http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.co...ame01%5E_50.jps[/url]
[quote]Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.[/quote]
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
[quote]Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.[/quote]
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
You can try to open this up with your Iz3D solution and see how it comes out: http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.co...ame01%5E_50.jps
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
-=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
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.[/quote]
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
[quote]So you have done a good job of explaining why you prefer a different solution, but for me (and others like me) is not a good solution it still leaves me without my legacy games unplayable in 3D. But I don't have a problem with your solution, this is not a competition between "your solution and mine", it's just a difference in preferences.[/quote]
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
You can try to open this up with your Iz3D solution and see how it comes out: [url="http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.com/self.aspx/Public/3D%20Vision%20Screenshots/conviction%5E_game01%5E_50.jps"]http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.co...ame01%5E_50.jps[/url]
[quote]Yes you can definitively say it, it doesn't mean it's true. I'm familiar with S3D (I've been playing since 2003, with NVidia, eDimensional and iZ3D solutions) and you already know what my preference is and believe me I'm not alone in this.
Also I don't claim everyone agrees with me.[/quote]
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
[quote]Is that what I was doing? I'm sorry. I was only trying to bring attention to something that I consider important. Thanks for helping but there is no need to take it personal, I never said you were crazy.
It's not a "campy workaround" and what constitutes a "clearly better option" is a matter of opinion and preference it's not an absolute, but there is no need to feel threatened I'm not advocating for anyone to take away the solution you prefer just add the solution that works for me (and others). Different people, different points of views, different preferences.[/quote]
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
[quote name='Abe' post='1112283' date='Sep 3 2010, 03:32 AM']That tells me you haven't understood what I'm proposing. If you look at how iZ3D has it implemented you'll realize it only needs to add a selector with 3 options: Symmetrical, Left Shift and Right Shift. It's not necessary to change any profile for any game or change in any special way how objects are rendered. The only thing they need to change is the relative position of the virtual cameras for each eye. It's an easy solution that will only take minutes.
Actually I did misunderstand as I thought you were suggesting a solution that selectively rendered certain assets/objects at different offsets in particular instances, like ADS or telescopic, but what you're suggesting is just reducing separation overall all the time. That's fine, the problem however is that you're still going to have inconsistencies and double crosshairs in a lot of games even if you managed to "fix" ADS by closing one eye and you're going to end up with a solution overall that accomplishes the same effect you had issue with: lowered separation and depth.
What legacy titles are you referring to? I can't count how many times people have claimed compatibility issues in games I've had no problems with whatsoever by simply dropping depth and adjusting convergence. Again, its not an ideal situation to be tied down when it comes to depth, but its nowhere near unplayable and isn't a problem in games that build a lot of depth into the scene using perspective. If you had a 3D Vision Kit I'd be glad to link some screenshots using minimal depth that still have plenty of depth for an excellent 3D Vision experience, Splinter Cell Conviction is a good example here.
You can try to open this up with your Iz3D solution and see how it comes out: http://cid-1a21782f49102306.office.live.co...ame01%5E_50.jps
Sure it is. I can definitively say any game that allows for perfect rendition of all crosshairs, ironsights, objects, cursors, icons, and overlays at the proper relative depths in 3D is superior to any workaround solution that results in double-crosshairs or requires you to close an eye to focus in various aspects of the game. I've already listed some games like BFBC2 and Borderlands that supports this, but if you want an even better example, look at the Lost Planet 2 demo that even renders HUDs and overlays at comfortable depths in 3D.
Now if you wanted to compare my low depth/convergence settings to your reduced offset method as preferential, I'd agree, the difference is my method actually works within the framework of current limitations without any significant problems or additional workarounds.
Yep its no biggy, you demanded an answer and you got one. Sorry if it wasn't the answer you were looking for but at least now you can see why some people have no interest in the solution you've proposed. If Nvidia is able to offer what you propose as a solution with little effort for those that want it, that's great, but if it takes significant effort to implement I'd certainly say their resources and efforts are better allocated elsewhere, like improving support and compatibility in 3D Vision titles going forward.
-=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
[quote]Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many.[/quote]
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.
[quote]Sorry you feel its misinformation, but everything I've stated is fact: Having to close one eye to pantomime in-game actions is cumbersome and the resulting 2D image defeats the purpose of 3D, making that solution undesirable to many.[/quote]
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.
Chiz, this is actually how you would have to fire a weapon in real life and to say it's cumbersome is quite an exageration in my opinion but each to their own.