Has nvidia abandoned 3dvision for good?
  1 / 7    
Or do they just update it "when they feel like it"? Feels like it's been years since nvidia added 3dvision support for the "latest games"
Or do they just update it "when they feel like it"?

Feels like it's been years since nvidia added 3dvision support for the "latest games"

i7-8700k, RTX 2080 X Trio, 32GB ram

#1
Posted 12/19/2015 01:35 PM   
[quote="sonarctica"]Or do they just update it "when they feel like it"? Feels like it's been years since nvidia added 3dvision support for the "latest games"[/quote] NVidia has not stop supporting 3D vision each driver release has new profile for 3D CM mode and the newer driver added support for 3D vision under direct x 12 the devs have stopped supporting 3D vision.
sonarctica said:Or do they just update it "when they feel like it"?

Feels like it's been years since nvidia added 3dvision support for the "latest games"


NVidia has not stop supporting 3D vision each driver release has new profile for 3D CM mode and the newer driver added support for 3D vision under direct x 12 the devs have stopped supporting 3D vision.

Gigabyte Z370 Gaming 7 32GB Ram i9-9900K GigaByte Aorus Extreme Gaming 2080TI (single) Game Blaster Z Windows 10 X64 build #17763.195 Define R6 Blackout Case Corsair H110i GTX Sandisk 1TB (OS) SanDisk 2TB SSD (Games) Seagate EXOs 8 and 12 TB drives Samsung UN46c7000 HD TV Samsung UN55HU9000 UHD TVCurrently using ACER PASSIVE EDID override on 3D TVs LG 55

#2
Posted 12/19/2015 01:44 PM   
They haven't abandoned it completely, but you can tell with the lack of new and upcoming hardware support it's on the way out. Game support is different, they rely on developers to spend time and thus money on supporting their features. With VR coming out and 3D being less popular than everyone imagined, it's harder for devs to justify the resources (primarily time) needed to get with the program, so to speak. It's a shame because conventional 3D is still going to be better than VR for the forseeable future in most games because of the comfort factor (glasses vs screen-on-face) and higher perceived resolution (regular viewing distance vs the screen being a couple of inches from your eyes).
They haven't abandoned it completely, but you can tell with the lack of new and upcoming hardware support it's on the way out. Game support is different, they rely on developers to spend time and thus money on supporting their features. With VR coming out and 3D being less popular than everyone imagined, it's harder for devs to justify the resources (primarily time) needed to get with the program, so to speak. It's a shame because conventional 3D is still going to be better than VR for the forseeable future in most games because of the comfort factor (glasses vs screen-on-face) and higher perceived resolution (regular viewing distance vs the screen being a couple of inches from your eyes).

#3
Posted 12/19/2015 02:44 PM   
To be fair, though, devs have stopped because Nvidia has stopped pushing it as part of their agenda. Nvidia always has their features that they push developers to support. 3D Vision used to be one of them, now it's not. It's a legacy product for them. Not that I have any issues with this. I think it's smart for Nvidia to focus their development resources (in this area) to VR. It's clearly the next step. And unlike 3D Vision, has a chance at being an actual mainstream success. I know that's kind of a polarizing statement here, but even as a DK2 veteran, The Apollo 11 Experience gave me goose bumps. I did it a second time (a couple months later), and got goose bumps again from it. VR is just the natural evolution of all this and if handled properly, has massive mainstream possibilities (even outside of gaming... or maybe especially outside of gaming).
To be fair, though, devs have stopped because Nvidia has stopped pushing it as part of their agenda. Nvidia always has their features that they push developers to support. 3D Vision used to be one of them, now it's not. It's a legacy product for them.

Not that I have any issues with this. I think it's smart for Nvidia to focus their development resources (in this area) to VR. It's clearly the next step. And unlike 3D Vision, has a chance at being an actual mainstream success. I know that's kind of a polarizing statement here, but even as a DK2 veteran, The Apollo 11 Experience gave me goose bumps. I did it a second time (a couple months later), and got goose bumps again from it. VR is just the natural evolution of all this and if handled properly, has massive mainstream possibilities (even outside of gaming... or maybe especially outside of gaming).

#4
Posted 12/19/2015 03:04 PM   
I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....
I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....

i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
EVGA 1080TI SLI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS
3D Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)

#5
Posted 12/20/2015 02:54 AM   
[quote="necropants"]I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....[/quote] Its all about payoff. Nothing gives vr like experience, not even good 3d vision setup. Of course it wont replace regular gaming out of tv but it has the potential to grow big alongside it. People will wear it if the experience is worth it.
necropants said:I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....


Its all about payoff. Nothing gives vr like experience, not even good 3d vision setup. Of course it wont replace regular gaming out of tv but it has the potential to grow big alongside it. People will wear it if the experience is worth it.

#6
Posted 12/20/2015 05:38 AM   
[color="green"]Paul33993 said: Not that I have any issues with this. I think it's smart for Nvidia to focus their development resources (in this area) to VR. It's clearly the next step. And unlike 3D Vision, has a chance at being an actual mainstream success.[/color] That remains to be seen !! VR is Tech for neards, and NOT for the average gamer - sure I will by a VR helmet sooner or later - but only for 1st person games, an NOT for RTS, Adventures, RPG's and games with many menu screens, where VR quickly gets tiresome. I also like the idea of beeing able to communicate with my Family when I'm gaming....
Paul33993 said:
Not that I have any issues with this. I think it's smart for Nvidia to focus their development resources (in this area) to VR. It's clearly the next step. And unlike 3D Vision, has a chance at being an actual mainstream success.



That remains to be seen !!

VR is Tech for neards, and NOT for the average gamer - sure I will by a VR helmet sooner or later -
but only for 1st person games, an NOT for RTS, Adventures, RPG's and games with many menu screens, where VR quickly gets tiresome.

I also like the idea of beeing able to communicate with my Family when I'm gaming....

Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Aurus 1080 TI 2.08 GHZ - 100% Watercooled !
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)

#7
Posted 12/20/2015 10:41 AM   
[quote="Blacksmith56"][color="green"]Paul33993 said: Not that I have any issues with this. I think it's smart for Nvidia to focus their development resources (in this area) to VR. It's clearly the next step. And unlike 3D Vision, has a chance at being an actual mainstream success.[/color] That remains to be seen !! VR is Tech for neards, and NOT for the average gamer - sure I will by a VR helmet sooner or later - but only for 1st person games, an NOT for RTS, Adventures, RPG's and games with many menu screens, where VR quickly gets tiresome. I also like the idea of beeing able to communicate with my Family when I'm gaming....[/quote] See, I would use it for basically anything but FPS. I think locomotion issues in FPS is horrible in VR. I would also say the entire world is a bunch of nerds anyways. Can you imagine if some dude held his head in a computer all day, 24/7, in the 1980s? He would have had a massive bullseye on his back. Yet, that's exactly what all the cool girls do now. The average person today is an uber nerd in historical perspective. [quote="necropants"]I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....[/quote] Maybe I'm wrong or not, but my greater point isn't about me anyways. It's about what NVidia is doing. I posted a podcast Nvidia recently did that pretty much explains it. https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/904329/3d-vision/interesting-nvidia-podcast-regarding-their-vr-initiatives-/ Nvidia is all in on VR. That's where their resources are. And if it fails? It won't be a bigger failure than 3D Vision anyways. Because purely from things like shopping, architecture, medicine, and education, VR will be bigger than 3D Vision ever was. And that's what Nvidia cares about. Supporting tech that sells video cards. I'd really suggest you listen to the podcast. Things like Nvidia's multi-resolution shading are hugely important to VR. And with its recent integration into Unreal 4, they've literally reduced the GPU power by 50 percent with zero visual downgrade to the user (it's related to the way VR optics warp resolutions and how the outer edges are displaying much lower resolutions anyways.) I think the greater delusion is thinking Nvidia is doing 3D Vision out of the kindness of their heart. It was always a marketing ploy. And at best, it was a very modest success. VR is the natural evolution for Nvidia because it has a much better chance at mainstream adoption. And for anyone that does adopt, it requires massive GPU support. Which is good for business. As they point out in the podcast, VR could fuel GPU needs for the next 20 years.
Blacksmith56 said:Paul33993 said:
Not that I have any issues with this. I think it's smart for Nvidia to focus their development resources (in this area) to VR. It's clearly the next step. And unlike 3D Vision, has a chance at being an actual mainstream success.



That remains to be seen !!

VR is Tech for neards, and NOT for the average gamer - sure I will by a VR helmet sooner or later -
but only for 1st person games, an NOT for RTS, Adventures, RPG's and games with many menu screens, where VR quickly gets tiresome.

I also like the idea of beeing able to communicate with my Family when I'm gaming....


See, I would use it for basically anything but FPS. I think locomotion issues in FPS is horrible in VR.

I would also say the entire world is a bunch of nerds anyways. Can you imagine if some dude held his head in a computer all day, 24/7, in the 1980s? He would have had a massive bullseye on his back. Yet, that's exactly what all the cool girls do now. The average person today is an uber nerd in historical perspective.

necropants said:I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....


Maybe I'm wrong or not, but my greater point isn't about me anyways. It's about what NVidia is doing.

I posted a podcast Nvidia recently did that pretty much explains it.

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/904329/3d-vision/interesting-nvidia-podcast-regarding-their-vr-initiatives-/

Nvidia is all in on VR. That's where their resources are. And if it fails? It won't be a bigger failure than 3D Vision anyways. Because purely from things like shopping, architecture, medicine, and education, VR will be bigger than 3D Vision ever was. And that's what Nvidia cares about. Supporting tech that sells video cards. I'd really suggest you listen to the podcast. Things like Nvidia's multi-resolution shading are hugely important to VR. And with its recent integration into Unreal 4, they've literally reduced the GPU power by 50 percent with zero visual downgrade to the user (it's related to the way VR optics warp resolutions and how the outer edges are displaying much lower resolutions anyways.)

I think the greater delusion is thinking Nvidia is doing 3D Vision out of the kindness of their heart. It was always a marketing ploy. And at best, it was a very modest success. VR is the natural evolution for Nvidia because it has a much better chance at mainstream adoption. And for anyone that does adopt, it requires massive GPU support. Which is good for business. As they point out in the podcast, VR could fuel GPU needs for the next 20 years.

#8
Posted 12/20/2015 02:02 PM   
Paul33993 Said: See, I would use it for basically anything but FPS. I think locomotion issues in FPS is horrible in VR. Well.. If that is a relative truth also in a couple of years, you can count me completely OUT :)
Paul33993 Said:
See, I would use it for basically anything but FPS. I think locomotion issues in FPS is horrible in VR.

Well.. If that is a relative truth also in a couple of years, you can count me completely OUT :)

Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Aurus 1080 TI 2.08 GHZ - 100% Watercooled !
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)

#9
Posted 12/20/2015 02:13 PM   
/\ Maybe in a couple years they'll be some acceptable solutions. There have been some recent techniques like controlling walking by leaning your head forward/backwards. I haven't personally tested that, but it sounds interesting at least in theory. But the current solution of press button/stick to walk forward just means my head's going to be in a cold sweat within 20 minutes. Locomotion is real for all but the most dedicated nerds. Something like Toybox Turbos, which you would assume is the poster child for 3D Vision and toyification, I think is actually significantly better with even the lowly DK2.
/\

Maybe in a couple years they'll be some acceptable solutions. There have been some recent techniques like controlling walking by leaning your head forward/backwards. I haven't personally tested that, but it sounds interesting at least in theory. But the current solution of press button/stick to walk forward just means my head's going to be in a cold sweat within 20 minutes. Locomotion is real for all but the most dedicated nerds.

Something like Toybox Turbos, which you would assume is the poster child for 3D Vision and toyification, I think is actually significantly better with even the lowly DK2.

#10
Posted 12/20/2015 02:22 PM   
With a completely neutral point of view - I don't se why anyone would want to Wear a helmet to play "Starcraft" or "Ori and the blind forrest" or Shadowrun or.... But I can clearly see why anyone wants to play "Alien Isolation" or "The Vanishing of Ethan Carter" with a helmet on :)
With a completely neutral point of view - I don't se why anyone would want to Wear a helmet to play "Starcraft" or "Ori and the blind forrest" or Shadowrun or....

But I can clearly see why anyone wants to play "Alien Isolation" or "The Vanishing of Ethan Carter" with a helmet on :)

Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Aurus 1080 TI 2.08 GHZ - 100% Watercooled !
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)

#11
Posted 12/20/2015 03:17 PM   
I don't really see what difference it makes TBH. I actually find the headset to be more comfortable than shutter glasses (and I'm sure the bump to 90hz will be even more comfortable to the eyes). I know the default argument for the anti-VR crowd is: "I don't want to be closed off to the world." But I think this a ridiculous argument. Gamers are shut off to the world when they play. Unless you're playing a local multi-player game like Mario Kart, we're zombied out anyways. Only way someone is getting the attention of a gamer is by screaming at them. And then the gamer is going to be more annoyed than chatty anyways. Just being real. I'd love to play a Starcraft where you had a huge table in front of you and you controlled your vast toy army with motion controls (that didn't suck). This is all irrelevant to the large picture anyways, though. 3D Vision has been abandoned because it wasn't something that moved hardware in large numbers. And at heart, that's all that matters to Nvidia. VR, like it or not, has massive large scale potential for hardware sales (even in gaming ultimately rejects it... which I don't believe it will).
I don't really see what difference it makes TBH. I actually find the headset to be more comfortable than shutter glasses (and I'm sure the bump to 90hz will be even more comfortable to the eyes).

I know the default argument for the anti-VR crowd is: "I don't want to be closed off to the world." But I think this a ridiculous argument. Gamers are shut off to the world when they play. Unless you're playing a local multi-player game like Mario Kart, we're zombied out anyways. Only way someone is getting the attention of a gamer is by screaming at them. And then the gamer is going to be more annoyed than chatty anyways. Just being real.

I'd love to play a Starcraft where you had a huge table in front of you and you controlled your vast toy army with motion controls (that didn't suck).

This is all irrelevant to the large picture anyways, though. 3D Vision has been abandoned because it wasn't something that moved hardware in large numbers. And at heart, that's all that matters to Nvidia. VR, like it or not, has massive large scale potential for hardware sales (even in gaming ultimately rejects it... which I don't believe it will).

#12
Posted 12/20/2015 07:07 PM   
VR will be like 3D, a majority of those that try it will only make a half assed attempt at maximizing/refining the experience and will write it off as a gimmick. These people will get the negative bandwagon rolling along spewing false information. Also like 3D, those that have never tried VR will jump on any negativity driven bandwagon that they see and also spew unfounded false information. Next will be the idiot journalists that spew anti-VR after only giving it a half ass try or having never even tried it. It's the above "three groups" that put a hamper on Stereoscopic gaming, IMO.
VR will be like 3D, a majority of those that try it will only make a half assed attempt at maximizing/refining the experience and will write it off as a gimmick.

These people will get the negative bandwagon rolling along spewing false information.

Also like 3D, those that have never tried VR will jump on any negativity driven bandwagon that they see and also spew unfounded false information.

Next will be the idiot journalists that spew anti-VR after only giving it a half ass try or having never even tried it.

It's the above "three groups" that put a hamper on Stereoscopic gaming, IMO.

#13
Posted 12/20/2015 07:41 PM   
Paul33993 said: I'd love to play a Starcraft where you had a huge table in front of you and you controlled your vast toy army with motion controls That's exactly what allready I do, when I'm playing Starcraft.. I have a large 3D screen in front of me and a mouse for motion control... And I'm still able to answer a question from my son - even without pulling of my glasses :)
Paul33993 said:
I'd love to play a Starcraft where you had a huge table in front of you and you controlled your vast toy army with motion controls

That's exactly what allready I do, when I'm playing Starcraft..
I have a large 3D screen in front of me and a mouse for motion control...

And I'm still able to answer a question from my son - even without pulling of my glasses :)

Win7 64bit Pro
CPU: 4790K 4.8 GHZ
GPU: Aurus 1080 TI 2.08 GHZ - 100% Watercooled !
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
And lots of ram and HD's ;)

#14
Posted 12/20/2015 07:56 PM   
[quote="sammy123"][quote="necropants"]I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....[/quote] Its all about payoff. Nothing gives vr like experience, not even good 3d vision setup. Of course it wont replace regular gaming out of tv but it has the potential to grow big alongside it. People will wear it if the experience is worth it. [/quote] Except from what I have seen and heard it's not a superior experience at all.
sammy123 said:
necropants said:I think your a bit deluded (and the industry) to think people will abandon their glasses for a even less convenient helmet....


Its all about payoff. Nothing gives vr like experience, not even good 3d vision setup. Of course it wont replace regular gaming out of tv but it has the potential to grow big alongside it. People will wear it if the experience is worth it.


Except from what I have seen and heard it's not a superior experience at all.

i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
EVGA 1080TI SLI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS
3D Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)

#15
Posted 12/21/2015 01:13 AM   
  1 / 7    
Scroll To Top