I'm not an expert here, and there are lots of the same things called by different names, so it's pretty confusing to me.
Here's an example of bump-mapping that I think I see in game.
[img]http://3dmodeling4business.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Bump-Map-3.jpg[/img]
I think that surface normal mapping is using the bump-map to decide how to actually change the vertices, which is why in a S3D scene it actually gives it depth.
For specularity, I read in their whitepaper that they actually recommend not doing proper 3D specularity, because you get a brighter in one eye effect, that in fact is how you actually see it in real life, but is not comfortable. The recommendation was to break the rules to make it more comfortable at the cost of believability.
I'm not an expert here, and there are lots of the same things called by different names, so it's pretty confusing to me.
Here's an example of bump-mapping that I think I see in game.
I think that surface normal mapping is using the bump-map to decide how to actually change the vertices, which is why in a S3D scene it actually gives it depth.
For specularity, I read in their whitepaper that they actually recommend not doing proper 3D specularity, because you get a brighter in one eye effect, that in fact is how you actually see it in real life, but is not comfortable. The recommendation was to break the rules to make it more comfortable at the cost of believability.
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
I found that 3D makes games look the way they really should, and it makes great games look amazing. Now I can never go back to flat, dull and lifeless 2D.
In a few games the biggest sin I noticed was that certain textures wouldn't display flush against the floor, like snow or pools of blood, but its rare and easily overlooked. Some flat texture work also looks kinda poor, but its forgivable and I won't let it tarnish my enjoyment.
The best things I found about 3D are the added sense of distance and scale that you just can't achieve in 2D. You also notice the detail in animations and spell/weapon/weather effects that you never notice in 2D. StarCraft 2 is a great example of this.
I defy anyone to play a game like Trine 2, Dead Space, Tomb Raider 2013 or any of the Batman Arkham titles in 2D and 3D and think that 2D is better in any way.
I loved 3D gaming on my 27" monitor at 1080, and I love it even more on my projector even with the drop down to 720. IMO the tradeoff between deeper 3D and a 100" screen vs the resolution drop is more than acceptable.
I found that 3D makes games look the way they really should, and it makes great games look amazing. Now I can never go back to flat, dull and lifeless 2D.
In a few games the biggest sin I noticed was that certain textures wouldn't display flush against the floor, like snow or pools of blood, but its rare and easily overlooked. Some flat texture work also looks kinda poor, but its forgivable and I won't let it tarnish my enjoyment.
The best things I found about 3D are the added sense of distance and scale that you just can't achieve in 2D. You also notice the detail in animations and spell/weapon/weather effects that you never notice in 2D. StarCraft 2 is a great example of this.
I defy anyone to play a game like Trine 2, Dead Space, Tomb Raider 2013 or any of the Batman Arkham titles in 2D and 3D and think that 2D is better in any way.
I loved 3D gaming on my 27" monitor at 1080, and I love it even more on my projector even with the drop down to 720. IMO the tradeoff between deeper 3D and a 100" screen vs the resolution drop is more than acceptable.
[quote="bo3b"]I'm not an expert here, and there are lots of the same things called by different names, so it's pretty confusing to me.
Here's an example of bump-mapping that I think I see in game.
[img]http://3dmodeling4business.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Bump-Map-3.jpg[/img]
I think that surface normal mapping is using the bump-map to decide how to actually change the vertices, which is why in a S3D scene it actually gives it depth.
For specularity, I read in their whitepaper that they actually recommend not doing proper 3D specularity, because you get a brighter in one eye effect, that in fact is how you actually see it in real life, but is not comfortable. The recommendation was to break the rules to make it more comfortable at the cost of believability.[/quote]Yeah, when you have a flat texture that reacts to lighting like that it's done with normal mapping now, and is used for almost all textures in modern games.
A height map (which may be the same thing as a bump map, not sure) can be used to change vertices in DX11 tessellation, but also for parallax mapping, which is a similar shader effect that I was complaining about (I know the original Bioshock used that quite a bit).
I dunno if I've ever seen 3D specularity in a game (maybe Resident Evil on 3DS had it, iirc), but why would it be less comfortable to look at in game than in reality? I always saw it as being a really impressive effect in 2D, but in 3D Vision it always looks fake and wrong to me.
bo3b said:I'm not an expert here, and there are lots of the same things called by different names, so it's pretty confusing to me.
Here's an example of bump-mapping that I think I see in game.
I think that surface normal mapping is using the bump-map to decide how to actually change the vertices, which is why in a S3D scene it actually gives it depth.
For specularity, I read in their whitepaper that they actually recommend not doing proper 3D specularity, because you get a brighter in one eye effect, that in fact is how you actually see it in real life, but is not comfortable. The recommendation was to break the rules to make it more comfortable at the cost of believability.
Yeah, when you have a flat texture that reacts to lighting like that it's done with normal mapping now, and is used for almost all textures in modern games.
A height map (which may be the same thing as a bump map, not sure) can be used to change vertices in DX11 tessellation, but also for parallax mapping, which is a similar shader effect that I was complaining about (I know the original Bioshock used that quite a bit).
I dunno if I've ever seen 3D specularity in a game (maybe Resident Evil on 3DS had it, iirc), but why would it be less comfortable to look at in game than in reality? I always saw it as being a really impressive effect in 2D, but in 3D Vision it always looks fake and wrong to me.
[quote="kludd40"]I dunno if I've ever seen 3D specularity in a game (maybe Resident Evil on 3DS had it, iirc), but why would it be less comfortable to look at in game than in reality? I always saw it as being a really impressive effect in 2D, but in 3D Vision it always looks fake and wrong to me.[/quote]Well, like I say, I'm no expert, but here's a quote from NVidia as Best Practices for developers:
[i]WRONG IS RIGHT
A subtle aspect of rendering in stereoscopic is that what is correct is not always right.
Sometimes it is better to reduce eye strain than to be physically correct. This is
particularly true for users that play with high values for separation.
One example of this is with very strong, very tight specular highlights. To be physically
accurate, the application would need to be aware of the actual view vector for each eye,
and then compute the specular highlights accordingly. In testing, NVIDIA has found
that using a unified camera that matches the specular highlight in both eyes reduces [/i]
[url]http://developer.download.nvidia.com/whitepapers/2010/3D_Vision_Best_Practices_Guide.pdf[/url]
This is the sort of thing that busts my head when playing in 3D:
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/bioshockinfinite2013-3djz1.png[/img]
kludd40 said:I dunno if I've ever seen 3D specularity in a game (maybe Resident Evil on 3DS had it, iirc), but why would it be less comfortable to look at in game than in reality? I always saw it as being a really impressive effect in 2D, but in 3D Vision it always looks fake and wrong to me.
Well, like I say, I'm no expert, but here's a quote from NVidia as Best Practices for developers:
WRONG IS RIGHT
A subtle aspect of rendering in stereoscopic is that what is correct is not always right.
Sometimes it is better to reduce eye strain than to be physically correct. This is
particularly true for users that play with high values for separation.
One example of this is with very strong, very tight specular highlights. To be physically
accurate, the application would need to be aware of the actual view vector for each eye,
and then compute the specular highlights accordingly. In testing, NVIDIA has found
that using a unified camera that matches the specular highlight in both eyes reduces
oh, tell me about it!! But it's not just 3D. My playthrough of Bioshock Infinite was completely in 2D, and I really hated those fake food textures. I remember thinking it was so incongruous with the generally outstanding art design.
Though I don't remember those two or three lone 3D apples sitting on top of the fake ones. Poor, sad, apples :(
oh, tell me about it!! But it's not just 3D. My playthrough of Bioshock Infinite was completely in 2D, and I really hated those fake food textures. I remember thinking it was so incongruous with the generally outstanding art design.
Though I don't remember those two or three lone 3D apples sitting on top of the fake ones. Poor, sad, apples :(
Here's an example of bump-mapping that I think I see in game.
I think that surface normal mapping is using the bump-map to decide how to actually change the vertices, which is why in a S3D scene it actually gives it depth.
For specularity, I read in their whitepaper that they actually recommend not doing proper 3D specularity, because you get a brighter in one eye effect, that in fact is how you actually see it in real life, but is not comfortable. The recommendation was to break the rules to make it more comfortable at the cost of believability.
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
In a few games the biggest sin I noticed was that certain textures wouldn't display flush against the floor, like snow or pools of blood, but its rare and easily overlooked. Some flat texture work also looks kinda poor, but its forgivable and I won't let it tarnish my enjoyment.
The best things I found about 3D are the added sense of distance and scale that you just can't achieve in 2D. You also notice the detail in animations and spell/weapon/weather effects that you never notice in 2D. StarCraft 2 is a great example of this.
I defy anyone to play a game like Trine 2, Dead Space, Tomb Raider 2013 or any of the Batman Arkham titles in 2D and 3D and think that 2D is better in any way.
I loved 3D gaming on my 27" monitor at 1080, and I love it even more on my projector even with the drop down to 720. IMO the tradeoff between deeper 3D and a 100" screen vs the resolution drop is more than acceptable.
i7 4790k @ 4.6 - 16GB RAM - 2x SLI Titan X
27" ASUS ROG SWIFT, 28" - 65" Samsung UHD8200 4k 3DTV - Oculus Rift CV1 - 34" Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide
Old kit:
i5 2500k @ 4.4 - 8gb RAM
Acer H5360BD projector
GTX 580, SLI 670, GTX 980 EVGA SC
Acer XB280HK 4k 60hz
Oculus DK2
A height map (which may be the same thing as a bump map, not sure) can be used to change vertices in DX11 tessellation, but also for parallax mapping, which is a similar shader effect that I was complaining about (I know the original Bioshock used that quite a bit).
I dunno if I've ever seen 3D specularity in a game (maybe Resident Evil on 3DS had it, iirc), but why would it be less comfortable to look at in game than in reality? I always saw it as being a really impressive effect in 2D, but in 3D Vision it always looks fake and wrong to me.
WRONG IS RIGHT
A subtle aspect of rendering in stereoscopic is that what is correct is not always right.
Sometimes it is better to reduce eye strain than to be physically correct. This is
particularly true for users that play with high values for separation.
One example of this is with very strong, very tight specular highlights. To be physically
accurate, the application would need to be aware of the actual view vector for each eye,
and then compute the specular highlights accordingly. In testing, NVIDIA has found
that using a unified camera that matches the specular highlight in both eyes reduces
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/whitepapers/2010/3D_Vision_Best_Practices_Guide.pdf
This is the sort of thing that busts my head when playing in 3D:
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
Though I don't remember those two or three lone 3D apples sitting on top of the fake ones. Poor, sad, apples :(