My 3D Vision vs VR Observations
  2 / 5    
[quote="SKAUT"]I use to race real cars and play on motion simulator on 150 inch 3D screen with TrackIR. That`s why I understand the advantage VR brings to racing titles compare to 3D Vision. There is nothing better then freedom in looking around inside the car. It is not only about going ahead - it`s also about managing car in environment, seeing other racers and obstacles. It`s really hard to slide your car sideway when you looking ahead and to corner in sharp turn sometimes you have to drift a little. I am definitely going back to my Motion Sim Rig when I get my hands on VR headset.[/quote] Which Brand are do you have your eyes on? Occulus or Vive??
SKAUT said:I use to race real cars and play on motion simulator on 150 inch 3D screen with TrackIR. That`s why I understand the advantage VR brings to racing titles compare to 3D Vision.
There is nothing better then freedom in looking around inside the car. It is not only about going ahead - it`s also about managing car in environment, seeing other racers and obstacles. It`s really hard to slide your car sideway when you looking ahead and to corner in sharp turn sometimes you have to drift a little.
I am definitely going back to my Motion Sim Rig when I get my hands on VR headset.


Which Brand are do you have your eyes on?
Occulus or Vive??

Gaming Rig 1

i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO

Gaming Rig 2
My new build

Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2

#16
Posted 08/15/2016 10:02 PM   
[quote="helifax"][quote="RAGEdemon"] Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode. [/quote] So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;) I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS. Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;) [/quote] Yeah that's right helifax! IIRC, nVidia were all about to release a 3D Vision mode for VR, but Oculus were not impressed due to such bad 3D Vision experience and state of affairs on the default driver, so nvidia backed off. I can understand that. 3D has always been viewed as a gimick by the public exactly due to bad support and cheap/inneffective technologies. I wish they had gone through with it, as 3D vision driver with shaderhacker support beats the pants off VorpX! ;-)
helifax said:
RAGEdemon said:
Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.


So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;)
I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS.
Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)


Yeah that's right helifax!

IIRC, nVidia were all about to release a 3D Vision mode for VR, but Oculus were not impressed due to such bad 3D Vision experience and state of affairs on the default driver, so nvidia backed off.

I can understand that. 3D has always been viewed as a gimick by the public exactly due to bad support and cheap/inneffective technologies.


I wish they had gone through with it, as 3D vision driver with shaderhacker support beats the pants off VorpX! ;-)

Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.

#17
Posted 08/15/2016 10:09 PM   
[quote="SKAUT"]I use to race real cars and play on motion simulator on 150 inch 3D screen with TrackIR. That`s why I understand the advantage VR brings to racing titles compare to 3D Vision. There is nothing better then freedom in looking around inside the car. It is not only about going ahead - it`s also about managing car in environment, seeing other racers and obstacles. It`s really hard to slide your car sideway when you looking ahead and to corner in sharp turn sometimes you have to drift a little. I am definitely going back to my Motion Sim Rig when I get my hands on VR headset.[/quote] This is a very good point. In the sim racing community there's always talk about that mythical "seat of your pants" quality that's missing. I always subscribed to the conventional wisdom that it did relate to feeling Gs. And that it was a purely tactile quality that made real driving so much easier to sense when things were about to go sideways. VR immediately proved that a lot of this "seat of the pants" is also visual based. And that if you can actually sit in the virtual seat of your car, you can also intuitively spot a lot of these subtle clues. It's clearly a YMMV element, but I find hardcore sim racing to be so much easier to drive in VR. In some ways it feels like cheating. Clearly aliens never had this issue, but for a mortal like myself, it's night and day in my ability to keep things under control. It removes that disconnect that always made sim racing much more difficult for me than actual driving.
SKAUT said:I use to race real cars and play on motion simulator on 150 inch 3D screen with TrackIR. That`s why I understand the advantage VR brings to racing titles compare to 3D Vision.
There is nothing better then freedom in looking around inside the car. It is not only about going ahead - it`s also about managing car in environment, seeing other racers and obstacles. It`s really hard to slide your car sideway when you looking ahead and to corner in sharp turn sometimes you have to drift a little.
I am definitely going back to my Motion Sim Rig when I get my hands on VR headset.


This is a very good point. In the sim racing community there's always talk about that mythical "seat of your pants" quality that's missing. I always subscribed to the conventional wisdom that it did relate to feeling Gs. And that it was a purely tactile quality that made real driving so much easier to sense when things were about to go sideways.

VR immediately proved that a lot of this "seat of the pants" is also visual based. And that if you can actually sit in the virtual seat of your car, you can also intuitively spot a lot of these subtle clues.

It's clearly a YMMV element, but I find hardcore sim racing to be so much easier to drive in VR. In some ways it feels like cheating. Clearly aliens never had this issue, but for a mortal like myself, it's night and day in my ability to keep things under control. It removes that disconnect that always made sim racing much more difficult for me than actual driving.

#18
Posted 08/15/2016 11:45 PM   
[quote="RAGEdemon"][quote="helifax"][quote="RAGEdemon"]Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode. [/quote]So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;) I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS. Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)[/quote]Yeah that's right helifax! IIRC, nVidia were all about to release a 3D Vision mode for VR, but Oculus were not impressed due to such bad 3D Vision experience and state of affairs on the default driver, so nvidia backed off. I can understand that. 3D has always been viewed as a gimick by the public exactly due to bad support and cheap/inneffective technologies. I wish they had gone through with it, as 3D vision driver with shaderhacker support beats the pants off VorpX! ;-) [/quote] I actually prototyped some code to do this specific setup, because I wasn't happy with VorpX and its performance. I created a working prototype for Witcher3 (because no F* DRM with GOG version that mistersvin so generously provided.) That allowed me to be in-the-game using Rift, but with the bad parts of using mouse-look to aim. However, this allowed me to clarify some things that are not at all obvious up front. First off- performance is terrible, because of the games themselves. Even people with wicked hardware setups cannot pull 90fps in 3D on Witcher3, even at 1080p. If you can't pull 90 fps, it will in fact make you barf. Every drop below 90 brings you to 45 fps, and Asynchronous Time Warp image glitches. Games like GTA5, there isn't anyone in the world who can run at 90fps in 3D. So Helifax's idea of going for older games is the only possible way to do something like this. And as a general rule, no one gives a damn about old games, as seen by the posts here in 3D Vision land. Then, in order to have even old games not look like ass because of the low resolution, you need to do super-sampling. How many even old games can run at 4K and still maintain 90 fps? Then, there is the small problem of broken SLI. The Rift SDK blocks the ability to even use SLI when I looked at the 0.8 version because it's no longer a monitor, there is only direct-mode. Likewise if a dev cared, they can independently do SLI, but automatic driver level support is DOA as near as I can tell. You can't shoehorn NVidia VR SLI into an old game. [b]And[/b] Oculus forced things to be single threaded. I managed to do some DX11 tricks to get the game and Oculus on different threads which doubled my performance from 15 to 30 fps. I think the 1.0 versions of the SDK might now allow for multi-threading, but I don't actually see this show up in VR built games. Look at your CPU usage for any VR built games. And yeah, you can do a SBS virtual screen in Visual Desktop or VorpX theater or Steam Theater, so you can have a shitty low resolution 3D monitor instead of your current compelling 3D Vision hardware. Or you can use the VorpX experience to shoehorn these in, and have the mostly terrible experience of endless tweaking and still have a mediocre game. HL2 for example- the city skylines are still broken. L4D2, plants and items at 'screen' depth. Broken UIs (or Peek all the time), and head-aiming. Bad performance from super-sampling or low quality visuals. You need to have a fairly low quality requirement to play this way. Not trying to be debbie-downer, but because of this experiment, I'm much less sure that it makes any sense to bring old games to VR.
RAGEdemon said:
helifax said:
RAGEdemon said:Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.
So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;)
I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS.
Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)
Yeah that's right helifax!

IIRC, nVidia were all about to release a 3D Vision mode for VR, but Oculus were not impressed due to such bad 3D Vision experience and state of affairs on the default driver, so nvidia backed off.

I can understand that. 3D has always been viewed as a gimick by the public exactly due to bad support and cheap/inneffective technologies.


I wish they had gone through with it, as 3D vision driver with shaderhacker support beats the pants off VorpX! ;-)

I actually prototyped some code to do this specific setup, because I wasn't happy with VorpX and its performance.

I created a working prototype for Witcher3 (because no F* DRM with GOG version that mistersvin so generously provided.) That allowed me to be in-the-game using Rift, but with the bad parts of using mouse-look to aim. However, this allowed me to clarify some things that are not at all obvious up front.


First off- performance is terrible, because of the games themselves. Even people with wicked hardware setups cannot pull 90fps in 3D on Witcher3, even at 1080p. If you can't pull 90 fps, it will in fact make you barf. Every drop below 90 brings you to 45 fps, and Asynchronous Time Warp image glitches.

Games like GTA5, there isn't anyone in the world who can run at 90fps in 3D. So Helifax's idea of going for older games is the only possible way to do something like this. And as a general rule, no one gives a damn about old games, as seen by the posts here in 3D Vision land.

Then, in order to have even old games not look like ass because of the low resolution, you need to do super-sampling. How many even old games can run at 4K and still maintain 90 fps?

Then, there is the small problem of broken SLI. The Rift SDK blocks the ability to even use SLI when I looked at the 0.8 version because it's no longer a monitor, there is only direct-mode. Likewise if a dev cared, they can independently do SLI, but automatic driver level support is DOA as near as I can tell. You can't shoehorn NVidia VR SLI into an old game.

And Oculus forced things to be single threaded. I managed to do some DX11 tricks to get the game and Oculus on different threads which doubled my performance from 15 to 30 fps. I think the 1.0 versions of the SDK might now allow for multi-threading, but I don't actually see this show up in VR built games. Look at your CPU usage for any VR built games.


And yeah, you can do a SBS virtual screen in Visual Desktop or VorpX theater or Steam Theater, so you can have a shitty low resolution 3D monitor instead of your current compelling 3D Vision hardware.

Or you can use the VorpX experience to shoehorn these in, and have the mostly terrible experience of endless tweaking and still have a mediocre game. HL2 for example- the city skylines are still broken. L4D2, plants and items at 'screen' depth. Broken UIs (or Peek all the time), and head-aiming. Bad performance from super-sampling or low quality visuals. You need to have a fairly low quality requirement to play this way.


Not trying to be debbie-downer, but because of this experiment, I'm much less sure that it makes any sense to bring old games to VR.

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

#19
Posted 08/16/2016 01:09 AM   
I recall experiencing VR boxing over 15 years ago with a bulky commercial VR headset and remember telling my friend at that time what potential this has. The resolution was akin to a 640x480 which reminded me of the graphic quality that you'd find in those 25 cent games like Defender, Chopper command, Pac Man etc..... The objective feedback here is not negative because one common thing I read is that most of us really want VR to be the next level of gaming. I've accepted the fact that VR is still in "potential" mode. VR has other inherent challenges besides screen resolution and high speed hardware. Movement, motion sickness, comfort, game design, cost, game support and these elements are also the crux of the issue. Until these things are sorted, VR will remain in this experimental phase. Even the VR zealots often use wording like "what if the resolution....", "when or if a AAA title", "early adopters"..etc....which really drives the message that VR needs to mature, which I do hope. If the cost of a VR headset was much lower, I'd grab one to check it out and experiment with mods and hacks and just have fun with that in itself.
I recall experiencing VR boxing over 15 years ago with a bulky commercial VR headset and remember telling my friend at that time what potential this has. The resolution was akin to a 640x480 which reminded me of the graphic quality that you'd find in those 25 cent games like Defender, Chopper command, Pac Man etc.....

The objective feedback here is not negative because one common thing I read is that most of us really want VR to be the next level of gaming. I've accepted the fact that VR is still in "potential" mode. VR has other inherent challenges besides screen resolution and high speed hardware. Movement, motion sickness, comfort, game design, cost, game support and these elements are also the crux of the issue. Until these things are sorted, VR will remain in this experimental phase. Even the VR zealots often use wording like "what if the resolution....", "when or if a AAA title", "early adopters"..etc....which really drives the message that VR needs to mature, which I do hope.

If the cost of a VR headset was much lower, I'd grab one to check it out and experiment with mods and hacks and just have fun with that in itself.

#20
Posted 08/16/2016 02:27 PM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="RAGEdemon"][quote="helifax"][quote="RAGEdemon"]Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode. [/quote]So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;) I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS. Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)[/quote]Yeah that's right helifax! IIRC, nVidia were all about to release a 3D Vision mode for VR, but Oculus were not impressed due to such bad 3D Vision experience and state of affairs on the default driver, so nvidia backed off. I can understand that. 3D has always been viewed as a gimick by the public exactly due to bad support and cheap/inneffective technologies. I wish they had gone through with it, as 3D vision driver with shaderhacker support beats the pants off VorpX! ;-) [/quote] I actually prototyped some code to do this specific setup, because I wasn't happy with VorpX and its performance. I created a working prototype for Witcher3 (because no F* DRM with GOG version that mistersvin so generously provided.) That allowed me to be in-the-game using Rift, but with the bad parts of using mouse-look to aim. However, this allowed me to clarify some things that are not at all obvious up front. First off- performance is terrible, because of the games themselves. Even people with wicked hardware setups cannot pull 90fps in 3D on Witcher3, even at 1080p. If you can't pull 90 fps, it will in fact make you barf. Every drop below 90 brings you to 45 fps, and Asynchronous Time Warp image glitches. Games like GTA5, there isn't anyone in the world who can run at 90fps in 3D. So Helifax's idea of going for older games is the only possible way to do something like this. And as a general rule, no one gives a damn about old games, as seen by the posts here in 3D Vision land. Then, in order to have even old games not look like ass because of the low resolution, you need to do super-sampling. How many even old games can run at 4K and still maintain 90 fps? Then, there is the small problem of broken SLI. The Rift SDK blocks the ability to even use SLI when I looked at the 0.8 version because it's no longer a monitor, there is only direct-mode. Likewise if a dev cared, they can independently do SLI, but automatic driver level support is DOA as near as I can tell. You can't shoehorn NVidia VR SLI into an old game. [b]And[/b] Oculus forced things to be single threaded. I managed to do some DX11 tricks to get the game and Oculus on different threads which doubled my performance from 15 to 30 fps. I think the 1.0 versions of the SDK might now allow for multi-threading, but I don't actually see this show up in VR built games. Look at your CPU usage for any VR built games. And yeah, you can do a SBS virtual screen in Visual Desktop or VorpX theater or Steam Theater, so you can have a shitty low resolution 3D monitor instead of your current compelling 3D Vision hardware. Or you can use the VorpX experience to shoehorn these in, and have the mostly terrible experience of endless tweaking and still have a mediocre game. HL2 for example- the city skylines are still broken. L4D2, plants and items at 'screen' depth. Broken UIs (or Peek all the time), and head-aiming. Bad performance from super-sampling or low quality visuals. You need to have a fairly low quality requirement to play this way. Not trying to be debbie-downer, but because of this experiment, I'm much less sure that it makes any sense to bring old games to VR. [/quote] Speaking of old games, I've had an absolute blast in Test Drive Unlimited 1 using my DK2.
bo3b said:
RAGEdemon said:
helifax said:
RAGEdemon said:Summary: if there is an apples to apples comparison, I think you will agree that VR wins out by quite some margin, but the biggest problem is content available for it. VorpX as a hack is just not good enough as it currently stands, and should not be used for a comparison to VR, especially in its non-geometry 3D mode.
So, what we need is our own wrapper for Rift that relies on 3D Vision hahaha;)
I am actually amazed Nvidia didn't port some of the 3D Vision Automatic code to VR. That would have solved a lot of problems including the lack of AAA titles. I think it would also need some of the cell shading to remove un-needed part from the screen to increase the FPS.
Would it be viable for all games? No. It would be viable for older games where you can reach the constant 90 FPS (180FPS in 2D). But as time passes and better hardware is released you would eventually be able to play all games;)
Yeah that's right helifax!

IIRC, nVidia were all about to release a 3D Vision mode for VR, but Oculus were not impressed due to such bad 3D Vision experience and state of affairs on the default driver, so nvidia backed off.

I can understand that. 3D has always been viewed as a gimick by the public exactly due to bad support and cheap/inneffective technologies.


I wish they had gone through with it, as 3D vision driver with shaderhacker support beats the pants off VorpX! ;-)

I actually prototyped some code to do this specific setup, because I wasn't happy with VorpX and its performance.

I created a working prototype for Witcher3 (because no F* DRM with GOG version that mistersvin so generously provided.) That allowed me to be in-the-game using Rift, but with the bad parts of using mouse-look to aim. However, this allowed me to clarify some things that are not at all obvious up front.


First off- performance is terrible, because of the games themselves. Even people with wicked hardware setups cannot pull 90fps in 3D on Witcher3, even at 1080p. If you can't pull 90 fps, it will in fact make you barf. Every drop below 90 brings you to 45 fps, and Asynchronous Time Warp image glitches.

Games like GTA5, there isn't anyone in the world who can run at 90fps in 3D. So Helifax's idea of going for older games is the only possible way to do something like this. And as a general rule, no one gives a damn about old games, as seen by the posts here in 3D Vision land.

Then, in order to have even old games not look like ass because of the low resolution, you need to do super-sampling. How many even old games can run at 4K and still maintain 90 fps?

Then, there is the small problem of broken SLI. The Rift SDK blocks the ability to even use SLI when I looked at the 0.8 version because it's no longer a monitor, there is only direct-mode. Likewise if a dev cared, they can independently do SLI, but automatic driver level support is DOA as near as I can tell. You can't shoehorn NVidia VR SLI into an old game.

And Oculus forced things to be single threaded. I managed to do some DX11 tricks to get the game and Oculus on different threads which doubled my performance from 15 to 30 fps. I think the 1.0 versions of the SDK might now allow for multi-threading, but I don't actually see this show up in VR built games. Look at your CPU usage for any VR built games.


And yeah, you can do a SBS virtual screen in Visual Desktop or VorpX theater or Steam Theater, so you can have a shitty low resolution 3D monitor instead of your current compelling 3D Vision hardware.

Or you can use the VorpX experience to shoehorn these in, and have the mostly terrible experience of endless tweaking and still have a mediocre game. HL2 for example- the city skylines are still broken. L4D2, plants and items at 'screen' depth. Broken UIs (or Peek all the time), and head-aiming. Bad performance from super-sampling or low quality visuals. You need to have a fairly low quality requirement to play this way.


Not trying to be debbie-downer, but because of this experiment, I'm much less sure that it makes any sense to bring old games to VR.


Speaking of old games, I've had an absolute blast in Test Drive Unlimited 1 using my DK2.

Gaming Rig 1

i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO

Gaming Rig 2
My new build

Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2

#21
Posted 08/16/2016 10:51 PM   
[quote="RAGEdemon"] -- Resolution: the effective resolution of both the CV1 and the Vive is ~2560x1600 due to the supersampling and warping. This can be enhanced using various hacks, which really does improve the overall resolution quite significantly. It is actually better than 1080p that you are gaming in 3D Vision with.[/quote]Various sources like Wikipedia state the resolution is 1080x1200 pixels per eye. Supersampling/AA can improve image QUALITY, but not resolution. Could you share your reference deriving the higher resolution (how was this determined)? Thanks.
RAGEdemon said:
-- Resolution: the effective resolution of both the CV1 and the Vive is ~2560x1600 due to the supersampling and warping. This can be enhanced using various hacks, which really does improve the overall resolution quite significantly. It is actually better than 1080p that you are gaming in 3D Vision with.
Various sources like Wikipedia state the resolution is 1080x1200 pixels per eye. Supersampling/AA can improve image QUALITY, but not resolution. Could you share your reference deriving the higher resolution (how was this determined)? Thanks.

#22
Posted 08/21/2016 03:42 AM   
Sorry as my question is not really about VR. Do you guys know of any Full HD or higher 3D HMD in development? I'm not refereeing to the VR ones I'm thinking more in the direction of Sony HMZ but higher resolution.
Sorry as my question is not really about VR.
Do you guys know of any Full HD or higher 3D HMD in development? I'm not refereeing to the VR ones I'm thinking more in the direction of Sony HMZ but higher resolution.

Intel i7 8086K
Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Aorus Extreme
DDR4 2x8gb 3200mhz Cl14
TV LG OLED65E6V
Windows 10 64bits

#23
Posted 08/21/2016 04:21 AM   
[quote="whyme466"][quote="RAGEdemon"] -- Resolution: the effective resolution of both the CV1 and the Vive is ~2560x1600 due to the supersampling and warping. This can be enhanced using various hacks, which really does improve the overall resolution quite significantly. It is actually better than 1080p that you are gaming in 3D Vision with.[/quote]Various sources like Wikipedia state the resolution is 1080x1200 pixels per eye. Supersampling/AA can improve image QUALITY, but not resolution. Could you share your reference deriving the higher resolution (how was this determined)? Thanks.[/quote] You're definitely right about what the physical resolution is. 2560X1600 is what the recommended render resolution is. I don't quite understand exactly how this works, but the way the optics warp the image, there's higher pixel density in the center of the screen. Rendering at 1.4X supposedly matches the pixel density that's in the center. I say I don't understand exactly what it's doing, because I don't think there's enough bandwidth to actually feed the screen that resolution. So it seems logical to assume even that is just super sampling. Of course, as mentioned before, the biggest issue with these lower resolution screens are jaggies. That's what destroys image quality more than large pixels. So even a little bit of super-sampling is going to help things look better. Of course, a lot of super sampling is even better. It's quite ironic that people now actively root for a game to be made in Unity (assuming it's using forward rendering and has enabled MSAA). Thanks to the jaggies, Unreal engine games look like dirty butt compared to properly coded Unity games.
whyme466 said:
RAGEdemon said:
-- Resolution: the effective resolution of both the CV1 and the Vive is ~2560x1600 due to the supersampling and warping. This can be enhanced using various hacks, which really does improve the overall resolution quite significantly. It is actually better than 1080p that you are gaming in 3D Vision with.
Various sources like Wikipedia state the resolution is 1080x1200 pixels per eye. Supersampling/AA can improve image QUALITY, but not resolution. Could you share your reference deriving the higher resolution (how was this determined)? Thanks.


You're definitely right about what the physical resolution is. 2560X1600 is what the recommended render resolution is. I don't quite understand exactly how this works, but the way the optics warp the image, there's higher pixel density in the center of the screen. Rendering at 1.4X supposedly matches the pixel density that's in the center.

I say I don't understand exactly what it's doing, because I don't think there's enough bandwidth to actually feed the screen that resolution. So it seems logical to assume even that is just super sampling. Of course, as mentioned before, the biggest issue with these lower resolution screens are jaggies. That's what destroys image quality more than large pixels. So even a little bit of super-sampling is going to help things look better. Of course, a lot of super sampling is even better. It's quite ironic that people now actively root for a game to be made in Unity (assuming it's using forward rendering and has enabled MSAA). Thanks to the jaggies, Unreal engine games look like dirty butt compared to properly coded Unity games.

#24
Posted 08/21/2016 01:04 PM   
[quote="Paul33993"]You're definitely right about what the physical resolution is. 2560X1600 is what the recommended render resolution is. I don't quite understand exactly how this works, but the way the optics warp the image, there's higher pixel density in the center of the screen. Rendering at 1.4X supposedly matches the pixel density that's in the center. I say I don't understand exactly what it's doing, because I don't think there's enough bandwidth to actually feed the screen that resolution. So it seems logical to assume even that is just super sampling. Of course, as mentioned before, the biggest issue with these lower resolution screens are jaggies. That's what destroys image quality more than large pixels. So even a little bit of super-sampling is going to help things look better. Of course, a lot of super sampling is even better. It's quite ironic that people now actively root for a game to be made in Unity (assuming it's using forward rendering and has enabled MSAA). Thanks to the jaggies, Unreal engine games look like dirty butt compared to properly coded Unity games.[/quote] This is right. The way the optics stretch the pixels, you need some super sampling to make it look the best it can. The Oculus SDK returns a 'recommended' size buffer, and it's super-sampled. Even though Oculus tends to be incompetent in nearly all aspects, let's assume they tested it and found that to be the best image possible. So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.
Paul33993 said:You're definitely right about what the physical resolution is. 2560X1600 is what the recommended render resolution is. I don't quite understand exactly how this works, but the way the optics warp the image, there's higher pixel density in the center of the screen. Rendering at 1.4X supposedly matches the pixel density that's in the center.

I say I don't understand exactly what it's doing, because I don't think there's enough bandwidth to actually feed the screen that resolution. So it seems logical to assume even that is just super sampling. Of course, as mentioned before, the biggest issue with these lower resolution screens are jaggies. That's what destroys image quality more than large pixels. So even a little bit of super-sampling is going to help things look better. Of course, a lot of super sampling is even better. It's quite ironic that people now actively root for a game to be made in Unity (assuming it's using forward rendering and has enabled MSAA). Thanks to the jaggies, Unreal engine games look like dirty butt compared to properly coded Unity games.

This is right. The way the optics stretch the pixels, you need some super sampling to make it look the best it can. The Oculus SDK returns a 'recommended' size buffer, and it's super-sampled. Even though Oculus tends to be incompetent in nearly all aspects, let's assume they tested it and found that to be the best image possible.

So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.

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

#25
Posted 08/21/2016 10:28 PM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="Paul33993"] So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.[/quote] No offense here, but no way. I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement. 1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote. I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.
bo3b said:
Paul33993 said:

So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.


No offense here, but no way.

I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement.

1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote.

I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.

#26
Posted 08/21/2016 10:56 PM   
[quote="Paul33993"][quote="bo3b"]So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.[/quote]No offense here, but no way. I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement. 1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote. I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.[/quote] Well, it's overkill in the sense that you are going past the primary recommendation from Oculus and also from the Valve SDK. The [i]native[/i] resolution is in fact 2560x1200 for both headsets. That is 1x. You are not going to get more pixels by drawing larger than that, but you will improve the quality. The recommendation from both Valve and Oculus is to use about 1.4x. They may have other reasons for choosing that optimum, like minimizing the impact on your hardware at drawing 4K. And of course, just like with DSR, if you go higher, you'll get some improvement. But there are going to be diminishing returns. And if you go too high, and break into reprojection/ATW, your overall experience will be worse. Not too be [i]too[/i] bratty, but if you don't know whether I have an HMD or not, you simply aren't paying attention.
Paul33993 said:
bo3b said:So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.
No offense here, but no way.

I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement.

1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote.

I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.

Well, it's overkill in the sense that you are going past the primary recommendation from Oculus and also from the Valve SDK.

The native resolution is in fact 2560x1200 for both headsets. That is 1x. You are not going to get more pixels by drawing larger than that, but you will improve the quality. The recommendation from both Valve and Oculus is to use about 1.4x. They may have other reasons for choosing that optimum, like minimizing the impact on your hardware at drawing 4K.

And of course, just like with DSR, if you go higher, you'll get some improvement. But there are going to be diminishing returns. And if you go too high, and break into reprojection/ATW, your overall experience will be worse.

Not too be too bratty, but if you don't know whether I have an HMD or not, you simply aren't paying attention.

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

#27
Posted 08/21/2016 11:18 PM   
I have, so far, just tried 3D gaming on a Plasma (with Tridef + sometimes with the use of Track IR also) + Occulus Rift (DK2). Occulus Rift was amazing when you sat in a car or a cockpit, i couldnt have cared less about the screen door thing really, the rest was very immersive. I was so looking forward to CV1, then then announced the price, that was disappointing because it was then obvious it will stay in tech-demo/indie dev mode for quite some time with little to no support from the big companies.
I have, so far, just tried 3D gaming on a Plasma (with Tridef + sometimes with the use of Track IR also) + Occulus Rift (DK2).

Occulus Rift was amazing when you sat in a car or a cockpit, i couldnt have cared less about the screen door thing really, the rest was very immersive. I was so looking forward to CV1, then then announced the price, that was disappointing because it was then obvious it will stay in tech-demo/indie dev mode for quite some time with little to no support from the big companies.

Computer: i7 2600K @4.8GHz / Asus Sabertooth P67 Rev3 / 32GB Corsair Vengeance / GTX 980ti / 34" Samsung S34E790C
Projectors: BenQ W700 / BenQ MH741

#28
Posted 08/22/2016 01:52 AM   
bo3b has both Vive and Rift (like me), and he has provided excellent state of the current HMD technology reviews in VR forum discussions.
bo3b has both Vive and Rift (like me), and he has provided excellent state of the current HMD technology reviews in VR forum discussions.

#29
Posted 08/22/2016 03:42 AM   
So, the games are rendered at 2560x1600 (or 1200) per eye, then warped to 1080x1200 (per eye) display, using HMD's optical transfer function? Are multi-resolution grid areas used to reduce unnecessary computation away from center of vision?
So, the games are rendered at 2560x1600 (or 1200) per eye, then warped to 1080x1200 (per eye) display, using HMD's optical transfer function? Are multi-resolution grid areas used to reduce unnecessary computation away from center of vision?

#30
Posted 08/22/2016 04:41 AM   
  2 / 5    
Scroll To Top