3D Vision driver NEEDS view offset/shift option!
  2 / 3    
"because they don't want this to be representative of the brand of 3D they are offering."
What do you mean by this exactly? 3D is 3D. In my opinion, the only way you can really be different about it is in how much control you give to the user. Are you saying that taking control away from the user is NVIDIA's brand of 3D?

"NVIDIA is still far and away the best solution out there so they probably aren't real eager to pour money over this way just so they can "win by more.""
You're right in that they really don't have much reason to invest their time and money, but it's because they're the most popular, not necessarily the best. I'm only with 3D Vision now because the product I have been using is no longer supported or sold, and I can't buy glasses for it anymore.

The only things I like about 3D Vision over my old 3D setup is 1) 3d surround, and 2) less ghosting.
Otherwise, the now-defunct product I used previously was more configurable, had more features, and didn't require oldschool eye-straining shutterglasses.

I knew about the latter before going into 3D Vision, and accepted it. Would've considered the decision a bit more carefully had I known about the former. Even now I'm having to continue to keep that old product around and take good care of the one remaining pair of clip-on glasses (held to my face via a short audio cable) so I can still use it for the games that need left-shift.

It's already proving to be a huge pain in the rear to play games like MW3, nuclear dawn, crysis, etc with 3D Vision, having to change my convergence setting *constantly* to keep my sights from messing with the laser sight while at the same time keeping them out of *my* line of sight. It's very frustrating.

"They even hide the convergence setting by default..."
Indeed, I found this absolutely ludicrous, given that the default convergence setting is quite unrealistic and not close to what I personally consider optimal.




NVIDIA: Throw us a bone here. Give us a simple option: Normal, Left Shift, Right Shift. All it has to do is double the shift amount for one eye, while keeping the other eye in the center. That's it! That is LITERALLY all that is required for this feature, it's that simple.


Or point me to a tool or hidden setting that will do the same thing. Maybe something similar to WidescreenFixer or SoftTH.
"because they don't want this to be representative of the brand of 3D they are offering."

What do you mean by this exactly? 3D is 3D. In my opinion, the only way you can really be different about it is in how much control you give to the user. Are you saying that taking control away from the user is NVIDIA's brand of 3D?



"NVIDIA is still far and away the best solution out there so they probably aren't real eager to pour money over this way just so they can "win by more.""

You're right in that they really don't have much reason to invest their time and money, but it's because they're the most popular, not necessarily the best. I'm only with 3D Vision now because the product I have been using is no longer supported or sold, and I can't buy glasses for it anymore.



The only things I like about 3D Vision over my old 3D setup is 1) 3d surround, and 2) less ghosting.

Otherwise, the now-defunct product I used previously was more configurable, had more features, and didn't require oldschool eye-straining shutterglasses.



I knew about the latter before going into 3D Vision, and accepted it. Would've considered the decision a bit more carefully had I known about the former. Even now I'm having to continue to keep that old product around and take good care of the one remaining pair of clip-on glasses (held to my face via a short audio cable) so I can still use it for the games that need left-shift.



It's already proving to be a huge pain in the rear to play games like MW3, nuclear dawn, crysis, etc with 3D Vision, having to change my convergence setting *constantly* to keep my sights from messing with the laser sight while at the same time keeping them out of *my* line of sight. It's very frustrating.



"They even hide the convergence setting by default..."

Indeed, I found this absolutely ludicrous, given that the default convergence setting is quite unrealistic and not close to what I personally consider optimal.









NVIDIA: Throw us a bone here. Give us a simple option: Normal, Left Shift, Right Shift. All it has to do is double the shift amount for one eye, while keeping the other eye in the center. That's it! That is LITERALLY all that is required for this feature, it's that simple.





Or point me to a tool or hidden setting that will do the same thing. Maybe something similar to WidescreenFixer or SoftTH.

#16
Posted 01/02/2012 05:21 AM   
[quote name='Zloth' date='01 January 2012 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1325434004' post='1350058']
NVIDIA is still far and away the best solution out there so they probably aren't real eager to pour money over this way just so they can "win by more." I wish they would throw us a bone here, though. Even if it's just some barely-supported thing where we have to change a registry setting to turn the feature on it would be a huge help.
[/quote]

I'd say 3D Vision is the second best below Tridef, with iZ3D being the worst. The only real advantage 3D Vision has right now is that it has the most number of titles with native 3D support. When it comes to 2D to 3D conversion for non-3D ready games, Tridef has 3D Vision beat.
[quote name='Zloth' date='01 January 2012 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1325434004' post='1350058']

NVIDIA is still far and away the best solution out there so they probably aren't real eager to pour money over this way just so they can "win by more." I wish they would throw us a bone here, though. Even if it's just some barely-supported thing where we have to change a registry setting to turn the feature on it would be a huge help.





I'd say 3D Vision is the second best below Tridef, with iZ3D being the worst. The only real advantage 3D Vision has right now is that it has the most number of titles with native 3D support. When it comes to 2D to 3D conversion for non-3D ready games, Tridef has 3D Vision beat.

#17
Posted 01/02/2012 05:30 AM   
[quote name='miahallen' date='01 January 2012 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1325401343' post='1349914']
Why do your posts always leave me hanging /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' /> What do you mean by that?

nVidia would be much more successful if they were more involved in listening & supporting the user base IMO /thumbsdown.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbsdown:' />
I'd also like to see this added!
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Nvidia is already fighting the mass perception stereo 3D is a gimmick. If you told someone interested in 3D that the "working" solution to resolve 3D crosshairs in a popular FPS title like Crysis was to pantomime squinting every time they wanted to aim using ironsights, there's a high chance they would reject 3D gaming and confirm their preconceived notion that its just a gimmick. I doubt Nvidia wants that to be representative of 3D Vision. They'd rather slap a "Fair" rating on it as fair warning and move on to making Crysis 2/3/4 etc. better in 3D.

Nvidia has had ample opportunity to enable or implement new features and options and if anything, we are getting fewer options as we go along. Its obvious they are very carefully trying to shape and control the end-user experience in 3D so its as fool-proof as possible as the bigger risk for them is not to lose their existing user-base, but to scare away potential user-base with too many variables or settings that can go awry.

But if you dig enough, I'm pretty sure AndrewF has said explicitly, Nvidia is not interested in implementing this (for whatever reasons).

[quote name='pir0zhki' date='02 January 2012 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1325481695' post='1350256']

What do you mean by this exactly? 3D is 3D. In my opinion, the only way you can really be different about it is in how much control you give to the user. Are you saying that taking control away from the user is NVIDIA's brand of 3D?[/quote]
Except in this case, 3D isn't 3D because you're suggesting a fix that actually results in a 2D image in one eye, which largely defeats the purpose of 3D to begin with. What works against this method is that even in 2D, we don't need to squint to aim and you'll still have a disturbing misaligned crosshair/ironsight when running around.

Also, I never implied taking options away was Nvidia's brand of 3D, especially when they never offered this option to begin with. I also don't presume to know exactly what Nvidia wants to offer as their brand of 3D, I can only make observations based on what games they've branded as 3D Vision Ready and it should be fairly clear that means at the minimum, you can play the game with both eyes wide open in 3D and not 2D (in one eye).

Personally I would prefer games to align crosshairs/ironsights so that you can aim with both eyes in 3D even if that's not completely accurate to real life, or at the very least, offer the option to disable the in-game sights and/or hide ironsights and use Nvidia's laser sight instead. Its not a perfect solution either but again, I know we all have our own wishlists and priorities.
[quote name='miahallen' date='01 January 2012 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1325401343' post='1349914']

Why do your posts always leave me hanging /tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':tongue:' /> What do you mean by that?



nVidia would be much more successful if they were more involved in listening & supporting the user base IMO /thumbsdown.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbsdown:' />

I'd also like to see this added!



Not necessarily. Nvidia is already fighting the mass perception stereo 3D is a gimmick. If you told someone interested in 3D that the "working" solution to resolve 3D crosshairs in a popular FPS title like Crysis was to pantomime squinting every time they wanted to aim using ironsights, there's a high chance they would reject 3D gaming and confirm their preconceived notion that its just a gimmick. I doubt Nvidia wants that to be representative of 3D Vision. They'd rather slap a "Fair" rating on it as fair warning and move on to making Crysis 2/3/4 etc. better in 3D.



Nvidia has had ample opportunity to enable or implement new features and options and if anything, we are getting fewer options as we go along. Its obvious they are very carefully trying to shape and control the end-user experience in 3D so its as fool-proof as possible as the bigger risk for them is not to lose their existing user-base, but to scare away potential user-base with too many variables or settings that can go awry.



But if you dig enough, I'm pretty sure AndrewF has said explicitly, Nvidia is not interested in implementing this (for whatever reasons).



[quote name='pir0zhki' date='02 January 2012 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1325481695' post='1350256']



What do you mean by this exactly? 3D is 3D. In my opinion, the only way you can really be different about it is in how much control you give to the user. Are you saying that taking control away from the user is NVIDIA's brand of 3D?

Except in this case, 3D isn't 3D because you're suggesting a fix that actually results in a 2D image in one eye, which largely defeats the purpose of 3D to begin with. What works against this method is that even in 2D, we don't need to squint to aim and you'll still have a disturbing misaligned crosshair/ironsight when running around.



Also, I never implied taking options away was Nvidia's brand of 3D, especially when they never offered this option to begin with. I also don't presume to know exactly what Nvidia wants to offer as their brand of 3D, I can only make observations based on what games they've branded as 3D Vision Ready and it should be fairly clear that means at the minimum, you can play the game with both eyes wide open in 3D and not 2D (in one eye).



Personally I would prefer games to align crosshairs/ironsights so that you can aim with both eyes in 3D even if that's not completely accurate to real life, or at the very least, offer the option to disable the in-game sights and/or hide ironsights and use Nvidia's laser sight instead. Its not a perfect solution either but again, I know we all have our own wishlists and priorities.

-=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

#18
Posted 01/02/2012 07:58 AM   
[quote name='chiz' date='02 January 2012 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1325491132' post='1350308']
Except in this case, 3D isn't 3D because you're suggesting a fix that actually results in a 2D image in one eye, which largely defeats the purpose of 3D to begin with. What works against this method is that even in 2D, we don't need to squint to aim and you'll still have a disturbing misaligned crosshair/ironsight when running around.
[/quote]

This confuses me. You do know that, in 3D, each eye *already* sees a 2D image, right? This is the way our eyes work. Hold a gun up and aim down its ironsights in real life, then close one eye, then the other. Your right eye will see down the sights. Your left eye will see a view to the left of the gun, with an unobstructed view to your target. Each are 2D images, and our brain is able to discern depth from that. Even then, however, you don't actually need to squint to use your sights. Just like in real life, people recommend you keep both eyes open even when aiming down sights. They still serve their purpose even if both eyes don't see them. It even makes hip-firing better -- currently at my personal convergence preference, the right-eye image shows the gun on the left side of the screen, which is just downright awkward.

In 2D we don't need to squint to aim because the sight is already aligned perfectly, because the screen has no way of sending different data to each eye. See my images above. The game acts like you're a cyclops with one eyeball in the center of your head, in front of which you can place your weapon sights. It works, but it translates poorly to 3D, because without Left/Right Shift, it aligns your gun *with the middle of your face*. Try aiming like that in real life. There's no way to translate sights-positioned-in-the-middle-of-your-face into 3d that allows it to actually be usable.

The only reason 2D sights work is because in both eyes, you can follow a perfectly straight line from your eye, to your sights, to your target. The same line, even. This *only* works in 2D, where both eyes' images have the same exact origin. This does *not* translate well to 3D because your eyes suddenly have two different origin points, and can no longer *both* follow a straight line from eye->sight->target while maintaining optimal 3D-ness. Only one eye can do that.



You can set your convergence to an extreme, which places everything in the entire game -- including your sights -- at a far distance to you. This certainly aligns things properly, except you effectively *lose all depth entirely* as a result of everything being positioned so far away (our eyes aren't great at discerning differences in depth at far distances, because the difference in the images each eye receive are miniscule). Effectively, you've taken the *entire game* back to 2D.

You can set your convergence to the OTHER extreme, pulling your gun extremely close to you so your ironsights appear far apart from each other for each eye. This only serves to keep them out of the way while you use the 3D Vision laser sight for your aiming. This keeps depth, but still leaves your sights nonfunctional, makes all 3d objects appear quite small, and/or actively obscures your vision.

Another option is to have the game actively move your sights in each eye, such that they align with whatever you're pointing at. This is precisely how the laser pointer works. The major issue here is that your weapon will appear at the same depth as your target, as the laser sight does now. This is fine for the laser sight, for cursors, for HUD items, etc... these are all small 2D objects by nature, so they don't risk being 'deeper' than the environment or looking out of place. This is NOT fine for a physical object that you're actually holding in front of you. What happens when your target is far away? Your gun becomes a massive flat billboard, a hulking behemoth, at the same depth as your target, likely appearing 'deeper' than foreground scenery (and the ground in front of you, actually), and any time there are conflicting depths like that, it's horribly disorienting.


Or you can just shift the two viewports, placing your gun in front of your right eye, right where it actually is in real life when you aim with one. You can still use your sights with both eyes open just fine, or you can close your left eye like some people do in real life. Hip-fire (and everything else) is totally unaffected. When you pull your sights up, you'll have two 2D images that your brain will still be able to (very roughly) approximate as a 3D object, due to perspective, without causing depth conflicts or looking out of place.


Frankly, I find Left/Right Shift to be the *only* acceptable solution to this problem. Not only does it make your sights *actually usable*, it doesn't make any sacrifices in the process -- In fact, on top of fixing the actual problem, it makes the experience *even more realistic and immersive*! You can use it like a real gun! At a convergence setting that makes it appear the same size as a real gun! While giving you a way to line up all 2D cursors, sights, etc without even trying!

It seems like you're saying that instead of picking the obvious, realistic (and simple!) choice, one which a number of people clearly want, NVIDIA wants to find a way to make our eyes do things they simply can't do, just because 2D gets to ignore the rules.



Of course, this is also ignoring the fact that in the previous implementation of this feature, it's disabled by default -- users actually have to turn it on if they want it. As simple as this feature should be to implement (seriously, check a registry setting and change a float value, assuming their system is sane), it's ludicrous that it's not there already.
[quote name='chiz' date='02 January 2012 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1325491132' post='1350308']

Except in this case, 3D isn't 3D because you're suggesting a fix that actually results in a 2D image in one eye, which largely defeats the purpose of 3D to begin with. What works against this method is that even in 2D, we don't need to squint to aim and you'll still have a disturbing misaligned crosshair/ironsight when running around.





This confuses me. You do know that, in 3D, each eye *already* sees a 2D image, right? This is the way our eyes work. Hold a gun up and aim down its ironsights in real life, then close one eye, then the other. Your right eye will see down the sights. Your left eye will see a view to the left of the gun, with an unobstructed view to your target. Each are 2D images, and our brain is able to discern depth from that. Even then, however, you don't actually need to squint to use your sights. Just like in real life, people recommend you keep both eyes open even when aiming down sights. They still serve their purpose even if both eyes don't see them. It even makes hip-firing better -- currently at my personal convergence preference, the right-eye image shows the gun on the left side of the screen, which is just downright awkward.



In 2D we don't need to squint to aim because the sight is already aligned perfectly, because the screen has no way of sending different data to each eye. See my images above. The game acts like you're a cyclops with one eyeball in the center of your head, in front of which you can place your weapon sights. It works, but it translates poorly to 3D, because without Left/Right Shift, it aligns your gun *with the middle of your face*. Try aiming like that in real life. There's no way to translate sights-positioned-in-the-middle-of-your-face into 3d that allows it to actually be usable.



The only reason 2D sights work is because in both eyes, you can follow a perfectly straight line from your eye, to your sights, to your target. The same line, even. This *only* works in 2D, where both eyes' images have the same exact origin. This does *not* translate well to 3D because your eyes suddenly have two different origin points, and can no longer *both* follow a straight line from eye->sight->target while maintaining optimal 3D-ness. Only one eye can do that.







You can set your convergence to an extreme, which places everything in the entire game -- including your sights -- at a far distance to you. This certainly aligns things properly, except you effectively *lose all depth entirely* as a result of everything being positioned so far away (our eyes aren't great at discerning differences in depth at far distances, because the difference in the images each eye receive are miniscule). Effectively, you've taken the *entire game* back to 2D.



You can set your convergence to the OTHER extreme, pulling your gun extremely close to you so your ironsights appear far apart from each other for each eye. This only serves to keep them out of the way while you use the 3D Vision laser sight for your aiming. This keeps depth, but still leaves your sights nonfunctional, makes all 3d objects appear quite small, and/or actively obscures your vision.



Another option is to have the game actively move your sights in each eye, such that they align with whatever you're pointing at. This is precisely how the laser pointer works. The major issue here is that your weapon will appear at the same depth as your target, as the laser sight does now. This is fine for the laser sight, for cursors, for HUD items, etc... these are all small 2D objects by nature, so they don't risk being 'deeper' than the environment or looking out of place. This is NOT fine for a physical object that you're actually holding in front of you. What happens when your target is far away? Your gun becomes a massive flat billboard, a hulking behemoth, at the same depth as your target, likely appearing 'deeper' than foreground scenery (and the ground in front of you, actually), and any time there are conflicting depths like that, it's horribly disorienting.





Or you can just shift the two viewports, placing your gun in front of your right eye, right where it actually is in real life when you aim with one. You can still use your sights with both eyes open just fine, or you can close your left eye like some people do in real life. Hip-fire (and everything else) is totally unaffected. When you pull your sights up, you'll have two 2D images that your brain will still be able to (very roughly) approximate as a 3D object, due to perspective, without causing depth conflicts or looking out of place.





Frankly, I find Left/Right Shift to be the *only* acceptable solution to this problem. Not only does it make your sights *actually usable*, it doesn't make any sacrifices in the process -- In fact, on top of fixing the actual problem, it makes the experience *even more realistic and immersive*! You can use it like a real gun! At a convergence setting that makes it appear the same size as a real gun! While giving you a way to line up all 2D cursors, sights, etc without even trying!



It seems like you're saying that instead of picking the obvious, realistic (and simple!) choice, one which a number of people clearly want, NVIDIA wants to find a way to make our eyes do things they simply can't do, just because 2D gets to ignore the rules.







Of course, this is also ignoring the fact that in the previous implementation of this feature, it's disabled by default -- users actually have to turn it on if they want it. As simple as this feature should be to implement (seriously, check a registry setting and change a float value, assuming their system is sane), it's ludicrous that it's not there already.

#19
Posted 01/02/2012 01:49 PM   
[quote name='pir0zhki' date='02 January 2012 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1325512147' post='1350452']
This confuses me. You do know that, in 3D, each eye *already* sees a 2D image, right? [/quote]
Yes I understand perfectly and this is why your solution will fail to gain significant traction or widespread support, because we don't need to squint to aim normally because the camera viewport assumes a 2D image with both eyes aiming.

You keep bringing the "real life" argument into play, but let me ask you, do you think the vast majority of gamers would agree to have a blurred 2nd ironsight visible unless they squinted to aim in 2D? I don't even think the tedious pseudo-sim shooters like ArmA and OpFlashpoint make you go through that. Why? Because it would suck. But that's what happens in real life. You need to squint to aim because you don't have a massive cyclopic eye in the middle of your head and everything in your near field will look doubled when you focus beyond it.

[quote]Frankly, I find Left/Right Shift to be the *only* acceptable solution to this problem. [/quote]
Well that's certainly your opinion at least. For some it won't be a viable solution, just another problem. Looking backward it may be the [i]easiest[/i] solution, looking forward there's clearly better alternatives like shifting convergence for near-field objects to align and mimic your 2D cyclopic view but in stereo 3D as many 3D Vision compatible games already do.

[quote]Of course, this is also ignoring the fact that in the previous implementation of this feature, it's disabled by default -- users actually have to turn it on if they want it. As simple as this feature should be to implement (seriously, check a registry setting and change a float value, assuming their system is sane), it's ludicrous that it's not there already.
[/quote]
Again, not sure why you assume its disabled by default when the option was never given by Nvidia. Their virtual dual camera method has always offset the right and left camera views from center, and while it would be very easy for them to provide an option to not shift the left camera viewport, that completely ignores whether or not they want to put that out there for reasons I've already stated. Beyond that, there's other issues with this method on the resulting quality of 3D as it will greatly limit the amount of depth you can achieve; roughly half of what you would get with dual offsets.
[quote name='pir0zhki' date='02 January 2012 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1325512147' post='1350452']

This confuses me. You do know that, in 3D, each eye *already* sees a 2D image, right?

Yes I understand perfectly and this is why your solution will fail to gain significant traction or widespread support, because we don't need to squint to aim normally because the camera viewport assumes a 2D image with both eyes aiming.



You keep bringing the "real life" argument into play, but let me ask you, do you think the vast majority of gamers would agree to have a blurred 2nd ironsight visible unless they squinted to aim in 2D? I don't even think the tedious pseudo-sim shooters like ArmA and OpFlashpoint make you go through that. Why? Because it would suck. But that's what happens in real life. You need to squint to aim because you don't have a massive cyclopic eye in the middle of your head and everything in your near field will look doubled when you focus beyond it.



Frankly, I find Left/Right Shift to be the *only* acceptable solution to this problem.


Well that's certainly your opinion at least. For some it won't be a viable solution, just another problem. Looking backward it may be the easiest solution, looking forward there's clearly better alternatives like shifting convergence for near-field objects to align and mimic your 2D cyclopic view but in stereo 3D as many 3D Vision compatible games already do.



Of course, this is also ignoring the fact that in the previous implementation of this feature, it's disabled by default -- users actually have to turn it on if they want it. As simple as this feature should be to implement (seriously, check a registry setting and change a float value, assuming their system is sane), it's ludicrous that it's not there already.



Again, not sure why you assume its disabled by default when the option was never given by Nvidia. Their virtual dual camera method has always offset the right and left camera views from center, and while it would be very easy for them to provide an option to not shift the left camera viewport, that completely ignores whether or not they want to put that out there for reasons I've already stated. Beyond that, there's other issues with this method on the resulting quality of 3D as it will greatly limit the amount of depth you can achieve; roughly half of what you would get with dual offsets.

-=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

#20
Posted 01/02/2012 04:33 PM   
The effect of right or left shift will give the same effect as "standard" l+r shift method. In most cases you'll probably not notice there's a difference between the methods at all. I've tried this myself using the iz3d driver. The images aren't shifted THAT much.
Myself i prefer a functional lasersight but in cases it doesn't work well, the one eye shift methods works decent. Some people can actually play and aim like this with both eyes open if they shift their nondominant eye only. Since i don't seem to have a dominant eye this doesn't work for me though.
Anyway: The only thing nvidia are doing today is removing features so don't expect this to happen.

Just a suggestion: Why not implement a interactive "trainingprogram" into the stereodriver? Where people can experiment with settings and continuosly get explanations and tiny courses for the advanced features like convergence, etc? Then nvidia can make the driver plug&play as is today but still make advanced features available in a "subtab". Best of both worlds with a decent amount of little work.
The effect of right or left shift will give the same effect as "standard" l+r shift method. In most cases you'll probably not notice there's a difference between the methods at all. I've tried this myself using the iz3d driver. The images aren't shifted THAT much.

Myself i prefer a functional lasersight but in cases it doesn't work well, the one eye shift methods works decent. Some people can actually play and aim like this with both eyes open if they shift their nondominant eye only. Since i don't seem to have a dominant eye this doesn't work for me though.

Anyway: The only thing nvidia are doing today is removing features so don't expect this to happen.



Just a suggestion: Why not implement a interactive "trainingprogram" into the stereodriver? Where people can experiment with settings and continuosly get explanations and tiny courses for the advanced features like convergence, etc? Then nvidia can make the driver plug&play as is today but still make advanced features available in a "subtab". Best of both worlds with a decent amount of little work.

Image

Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe

Cpu: C2D E6600

Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX

3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D

Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.

#21
Posted 01/02/2012 05:15 PM   
[quote name='Likay' date='02 January 2012 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1325524524' post='1350519']
The effect of right or left shift will give the same effect as "standard" l+r shift method. In most cases you'll probably not notice there's a difference between the methods at all. I've tried this myself using the iz3d driver. The images aren't shifted THAT much.
Myself i prefer a functional lasersight but in cases it doesn't work well, the one eye shift methods works decent. Some people can actually play and aim like this with both eyes open if they shift their nondominant eye only. Since i don't seem to have a dominant eye this doesn't work for me though.
Anyway: The only thing nvidia are doing today is removing features so don't expect this to happen.[/quote]
Well it would reduce depth and separation at the same relative wheel settings since you effectively cut your separation amount in half, but if you doubled the overall depth budget you could compensate that way.

[quote]Just a suggestion: Why not implement a interactive "trainingprogram" into the stereodriver? Where people can experiment with settings and continuosly get explanations and tiny courses for the advanced features like convergence, etc? Then nvidia can make the driver plug&play as is today but still make advanced features available in a "subtab". Best of both worlds with a decent amount of little work.
[/quote]
I agree and have suggested this in the past. Convergence shouldn't be hidden; if anything there should be an interactive program that literally guides you through the setting adjustments and informs the user how to adjust stereoscopy to their tastes. I'm pretty sure Andrew said they would look into it, but again, its become more obvious they want to expose less to the end-user rather than more.

Also, so we don't completely hijack this thread, along these veins are other suggestions me and other users have suggested in the past:

[list]

[*]1) [b]Multiple Convergence Presets[/b]: I know you've suggested this before as an iZ3D user. Most obvious application would be to quickly shift between problematic depth changes in games, most notably cut-scenes or dialogue scenes where the camera shifts to uncomfortable vantage points relative to the normal game camera position. AndrewF said he thought it was a good idea and would look into implementing this, but still nothing has come of it.
[*]2) [b]Contextual/Macro button-press Convergence changes[/b]: Building on multiple convergence preset option, you could allow bindable key press sequences or macros to engage different convergence/separation presets to correct some of the problems we talked about here. So for example, you could have a high depth/low convergence preset for running around normally, but when you press RMB to aim down sights, that could be bound to another Convergence preset to flatten out your viewport and allow accurate aiming with both eyes. Many 3D Vision compatible shooters already do this to some degree.
[*]3) [b]Eye-blank on button-press[/b]: This would work best with the Left shift method suggested by the OP. If Nvidia provided the Left shift option, they should also include an option that blanks the left eye (non-dominant) automatically each time you press the ADS button (RMB). So instead of manually having to squint to aim, the glasses would do it automatically for you in the normal act of aiming (pressing RMB on the mouse).
[/list]

Then there's pipe dream type stuff like exposing their 3D Vision profiles or providing us a similar tool to what nHancer/Nvidia Inspector/GeForce SLI tool offer us with SLI/AA profiles. /biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':biggrin:' />
[quote name='Likay' date='02 January 2012 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1325524524' post='1350519']

The effect of right or left shift will give the same effect as "standard" l+r shift method. In most cases you'll probably not notice there's a difference between the methods at all. I've tried this myself using the iz3d driver. The images aren't shifted THAT much.

Myself i prefer a functional lasersight but in cases it doesn't work well, the one eye shift methods works decent. Some people can actually play and aim like this with both eyes open if they shift their nondominant eye only. Since i don't seem to have a dominant eye this doesn't work for me though.

Anyway: The only thing nvidia are doing today is removing features so don't expect this to happen.

Well it would reduce depth and separation at the same relative wheel settings since you effectively cut your separation amount in half, but if you doubled the overall depth budget you could compensate that way.



Just a suggestion: Why not implement a interactive "trainingprogram" into the stereodriver? Where people can experiment with settings and continuosly get explanations and tiny courses for the advanced features like convergence, etc? Then nvidia can make the driver plug&play as is today but still make advanced features available in a "subtab". Best of both worlds with a decent amount of little work.



I agree and have suggested this in the past. Convergence shouldn't be hidden; if anything there should be an interactive program that literally guides you through the setting adjustments and informs the user how to adjust stereoscopy to their tastes. I'm pretty sure Andrew said they would look into it, but again, its become more obvious they want to expose less to the end-user rather than more.



Also, so we don't completely hijack this thread, along these veins are other suggestions me and other users have suggested in the past:






  • 1) Multiple Convergence Presets: I know you've suggested this before as an iZ3D user. Most obvious application would be to quickly shift between problematic depth changes in games, most notably cut-scenes or dialogue scenes where the camera shifts to uncomfortable vantage points relative to the normal game camera position. AndrewF said he thought it was a good idea and would look into implementing this, but still nothing has come of it.
  • 2) Contextual/Macro button-press Convergence changes: Building on multiple convergence preset option, you could allow bindable key press sequences or macros to engage different convergence/separation presets to correct some of the problems we talked about here. So for example, you could have a high depth/low convergence preset for running around normally, but when you press RMB to aim down sights, that could be bound to another Convergence preset to flatten out your viewport and allow accurate aiming with both eyes. Many 3D Vision compatible shooters already do this to some degree.
  • 3) Eye-blank on button-press: This would work best with the Left shift method suggested by the OP. If Nvidia provided the Left shift option, they should also include an option that blanks the left eye (non-dominant) automatically each time you press the ADS button (RMB). So instead of manually having to squint to aim, the glasses would do it automatically for you in the normal act of aiming (pressing RMB on the mouse).




Then there's pipe dream type stuff like exposing their 3D Vision profiles or providing us a similar tool to what nHancer/Nvidia Inspector/GeForce SLI tool offer us with SLI/AA profiles. /biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':biggrin:' />

-=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

#22
Posted 01/02/2012 06:38 PM   
[quote name='chiz' date='02 January 2012 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1325522031' post='1350504']Again, not sure why you assume its disabled by default when the option was never given by Nvidia.[/quote]

I was referring to the implementation by iZ3D, which I've been using for several years now. It's disabled by default, and you can easily switch it to Left or Right Shift, either globally or per game profile. Would not have enjoyed 3D nearly as much without the Left Shift option their driver provides.

I find the concept of independent near-field convergence to be flawed, given that it would result in either 1) offsets of front/rear ironsights/etc that I personally find unacceptable, or 2) a completely 2D weapon in both eyes, and it feels to me as though it would have issues with proper depth and weapon size. I'm not sure I buy that they can make your weapon and environments appear at the appropriate depth and size while having it aligned with both eyes, either, but I may not entirely understand the strange anti-science that is independent separation/convergence. Either way, it's a needlessly complex workaround for something whose most realistic solution is already so simple.

Plus, it makes absolutely zero sense to be able to look through your weapon sights with both eyes at the same time to begin with, that's just silly. We only do it in 2D because there's literally no other way. Either way, I'll be pretty quick to turn this feature off if it's ever implemented. I'm not a cyclops and I have no interest in pretending to be one in a system specifically designed to let me use both my eyes the way they were intended to be used.

I personally find that Left Shift's property of enhanced realism alone makes it an excellent option -- you get the benefits of having proper depth and weapon size, and fully-functional and properly-aligned ironsights. I don't understand your fixation on the "squint" thing. You don't need to do this! ever! I mean, I guess you can if you WANT to, but ask anyone familiar with firearms and they'll tell you NOT to close your left eye when aiming. In addition to being more realistic, your left eye gains an unobstructed view of your target and the environment in front of you. This is how you use *real* ironsights/reddots/scopes/etc. There's no need for a left-eye-blank feature, as that's completely unnecessary and actually detrimental to the experience. You're *supposed* to use both eyes.

[quote name='chiz']
Well it would reduce depth and separation at the same relative wheel settings since you effectively cut your separation amount in half, but if you doubled the overall depth budget you could compensate that way. [/quote]
I'm not 100% certain I'm interpreting this sentence correctly, but assuming I am: Left/Right Shift doesn't alter the separation at all -- it's doubled in one direction, reduced to zero in the other. Effectively the center point is shifted over while maintaining the same separation/depth.



I wholeheartedly agree that advanced settings and options need to be more exposed. Convergence is such a basic setting, yet it's disabled by default and even when enabled there's no OSD for it. That's just not cool.
Nevermind that the default convergence and depth settings for literally every game I've played so far are so ridiculously off the mark. They're all very 'safe' values, but they're completely unrealistic.



[quote name='chiz']So for example, you could have a high depth/low convergence preset for running around normally, but when you press RMB to aim down sights, that could be bound to another Convergence preset to flatten out your viewport and allow accurate aiming with both eyes.[/quote]
I personally would immediately disable any such "flatten my view on ironsights" feature. 3D is about more realism and immersion, and that would snatch you right out of it. When I'm playing in 3D, I expect it to be consistently 3D all the time. Changing depth and convergence from simply moving your eyes and gun (in game) constantly makes no sense. With Shift you don't need to ever change anything between hipfire and ironsights. Heck, it even makes hipfire position look better at the convergence/separation settings I use.




A "training program" would be pretty great, +1 for that. I think it's fairly important for users to understand the different settings they can apply, and how they affect the gaming experience. Not everyone will want to play with the same convergence, depth, etc. Some folks might prefer playing with convergence set to contain everything within their screen, while others (such as myself) prefer to set it such that objects have realistic sizes (I like to position mine approximately such that the tip of a silenced assault rifle contacts screen-plane. It's a decent ballpark area for realistically-sized objects.)
[quote name='chiz' date='02 January 2012 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1325522031' post='1350504']Again, not sure why you assume its disabled by default when the option was never given by Nvidia.



I was referring to the implementation by iZ3D, which I've been using for several years now. It's disabled by default, and you can easily switch it to Left or Right Shift, either globally or per game profile. Would not have enjoyed 3D nearly as much without the Left Shift option their driver provides.



I find the concept of independent near-field convergence to be flawed, given that it would result in either 1) offsets of front/rear ironsights/etc that I personally find unacceptable, or 2) a completely 2D weapon in both eyes, and it feels to me as though it would have issues with proper depth and weapon size. I'm not sure I buy that they can make your weapon and environments appear at the appropriate depth and size while having it aligned with both eyes, either, but I may not entirely understand the strange anti-science that is independent separation/convergence. Either way, it's a needlessly complex workaround for something whose most realistic solution is already so simple.



Plus, it makes absolutely zero sense to be able to look through your weapon sights with both eyes at the same time to begin with, that's just silly. We only do it in 2D because there's literally no other way. Either way, I'll be pretty quick to turn this feature off if it's ever implemented. I'm not a cyclops and I have no interest in pretending to be one in a system specifically designed to let me use both my eyes the way they were intended to be used.



I personally find that Left Shift's property of enhanced realism alone makes it an excellent option -- you get the benefits of having proper depth and weapon size, and fully-functional and properly-aligned ironsights. I don't understand your fixation on the "squint" thing. You don't need to do this! ever! I mean, I guess you can if you WANT to, but ask anyone familiar with firearms and they'll tell you NOT to close your left eye when aiming. In addition to being more realistic, your left eye gains an unobstructed view of your target and the environment in front of you. This is how you use *real* ironsights/reddots/scopes/etc. There's no need for a left-eye-blank feature, as that's completely unnecessary and actually detrimental to the experience. You're *supposed* to use both eyes.



chiz said:

Well it would reduce depth and separation at the same relative wheel settings since you effectively cut your separation amount in half, but if you doubled the overall depth budget you could compensate that way.


I'm not 100% certain I'm interpreting this sentence correctly, but assuming I am: Left/Right Shift doesn't alter the separation at all -- it's doubled in one direction, reduced to zero in the other. Effectively the center point is shifted over while maintaining the same separation/depth.







I wholeheartedly agree that advanced settings and options need to be more exposed. Convergence is such a basic setting, yet it's disabled by default and even when enabled there's no OSD for it. That's just not cool.

Nevermind that the default convergence and depth settings for literally every game I've played so far are so ridiculously off the mark. They're all very 'safe' values, but they're completely unrealistic.







chiz said:So for example, you could have a high depth/low convergence preset for running around normally, but when you press RMB to aim down sights, that could be bound to another Convergence preset to flatten out your viewport and allow accurate aiming with both eyes.


I personally would immediately disable any such "flatten my view on ironsights" feature. 3D is about more realism and immersion, and that would snatch you right out of it. When I'm playing in 3D, I expect it to be consistently 3D all the time. Changing depth and convergence from simply moving your eyes and gun (in game) constantly makes no sense. With Shift you don't need to ever change anything between hipfire and ironsights. Heck, it even makes hipfire position look better at the convergence/separation settings I use.









A "training program" would be pretty great, +1 for that. I think it's fairly important for users to understand the different settings they can apply, and how they affect the gaming experience. Not everyone will want to play with the same convergence, depth, etc. Some folks might prefer playing with convergence set to contain everything within their screen, while others (such as myself) prefer to set it such that objects have realistic sizes (I like to position mine approximately such that the tip of a silenced assault rifle contacts screen-plane. It's a decent ballpark area for realistically-sized objects.)

#23
Posted 01/02/2012 06:48 PM   
[quote name='chiz']Well it would reduce depth and separation at the same relative wheel settings since you effectively cut your separation amount in half, but if you doubled the overall depth budget you could compensate that way. [/quote]Of the principle you describe you're of course right. The iz3d-driver works in the way that the total depth set by the user is shared between the eyes so no compensation is really needed when changing the shiftmode (100%l,100%r or 50%l+50%r). The result looks like this (lasersight turned on):

Separationmode: Symmetric:
[URL=http://img20.imageshack.us/i/symmetric.jpg/][IMG]http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7035/symmetric.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Separationmode: Left eye shift
[URL=http://img809.imageshack.us/i/lefth.jpg/][IMG]http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/4566/lefth.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Separationmode: Right eye shift
[URL=http://img859.imageshack.us/i/rightq.jpg/][IMG]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/1640/rightq.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

As you can see the actual depth is the same in all the images even if the separationmode is changed. If l or r shift is turned on noone would probably notice anything different in gameplay/visual appearance except for the lasersight (or a very good memory of the gun placement...).
There's no gain in performance what i noticed by using this feature but it's kinda cool anyway. As said i personally prefer a working lasersight over this feature. When viewing 3d i prefer having both eyes open. /cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cool:' />
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/94/controlpanelr.jpg/][IMG]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8610/controlpanelr.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
chiz said:Well it would reduce depth and separation at the same relative wheel settings since you effectively cut your separation amount in half, but if you doubled the overall depth budget you could compensate that way.
Of the principle you describe you're of course right. The iz3d-driver works in the way that the total depth set by the user is shared between the eyes so no compensation is really needed when changing the shiftmode (100%l,100%r or 50%l+50%r). The result looks like this (lasersight turned on):



Separationmode: Symmetric:

Image



Separationmode: Left eye shift

Image



Separationmode: Right eye shift

Image



As you can see the actual depth is the same in all the images even if the separationmode is changed. If l or r shift is turned on noone would probably notice anything different in gameplay/visual appearance except for the lasersight (or a very good memory of the gun placement...).

There's no gain in performance what i noticed by using this feature but it's kinda cool anyway. As said i personally prefer a working lasersight over this feature. When viewing 3d i prefer having both eyes open. /cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cool:' />

Image

Image

Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe

Cpu: C2D E6600

Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX

3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D

Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.

#24
Posted 01/02/2012 09:42 PM   
Left/Right shift primarily apply when needing weapon sights; other scenarios don't require it as much. It makes 2D cursors slightly more bearable, but a 3d cursor fix would be better in those cases. Of course, in games like Portal that don't require any eye alignment and have no visible effects of enabling Shift aside from changing reticle position, you'd just pull down the console, do `crosshair 0` or whatever, and turn on laser sight.

A much, much better illustration of the effect is in the aforementioned weapon sights examples -- modern warfare, crysis, and so on. That's the primary motivation for using Left/Right Shift to begin with.


I can't stress that enough -- the point of Left/Right Shift is *not* to fix doubled/misaligned cursors/crosshairs/HUD elements, etc in games like Portal. The effect in those instances is trivial and not particularly helpful.

Left/Right Shift is for fixing complex/weapon sight aiming. iron sights, red dots, acogs, that kind of thing.
Left/Right shift primarily apply when needing weapon sights; other scenarios don't require it as much. It makes 2D cursors slightly more bearable, but a 3d cursor fix would be better in those cases. Of course, in games like Portal that don't require any eye alignment and have no visible effects of enabling Shift aside from changing reticle position, you'd just pull down the console, do `crosshair 0` or whatever, and turn on laser sight.



A much, much better illustration of the effect is in the aforementioned weapon sights examples -- modern warfare, crysis, and so on. That's the primary motivation for using Left/Right Shift to begin with.





I can't stress that enough -- the point of Left/Right Shift is *not* to fix doubled/misaligned cursors/crosshairs/HUD elements, etc in games like Portal. The effect in those instances is trivial and not particularly helpful.



Left/Right Shift is for fixing complex/weapon sight aiming. iron sights, red dots, acogs, that kind of thing.

#25
Posted 01/02/2012 11:03 PM   
[quote name='pir0zhki' date='02 January 2012 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1325530115' post='1350573']
I was referring to the implementation by iZ3D, which I've been using for several years now. It's disabled by default, and you can easily switch it to Left or Right Shift, either globally or per game profile. Would not have enjoyed 3D nearly as much without the Left Shift option their driver provides.

I find the concept of independent near-field convergence to be flawed, given that it would result in either 1) offsets of front/rear ironsights/etc that I personally find unacceptable, or 2) a completely 2D weapon in both eyes, and it feels to me as though it would have issues with proper depth and weapon size. I'm not sure I buy that they can make your weapon and environments appear at the appropriate depth and size while having it aligned with both eyes, either, but I may not entirely understand the strange anti-science that is independent separation/convergence. Either way, it's a needlessly complex workaround for something whose most realistic solution is already so simple.

Plus, it makes absolutely zero sense to be able to look through your weapon sights with both eyes at the same time to begin with, that's just silly. We only do it in 2D because there's literally no other way. Either way, I'll be pretty quick to turn this feature off if it's ever implemented. I'm not a cyclops and I have no interest in pretending to be one in a system specifically designed to let me use both my eyes the way they were intended to be used.

I personally find that Left Shift's property of enhanced realism alone makes it an excellent option -- you get the benefits of having proper depth and weapon size, and fully-functional and properly-aligned ironsights. I don't understand your fixation on the "squint" thing. You don't need to do this! ever! I mean, I guess you can if you WANT to, but ask anyone familiar with firearms and they'll tell you NOT to close your left eye when aiming. In addition to being more realistic, your left eye gains an unobstructed view of your target and the environment in front of you. This is how you use *real* ironsights/reddots/scopes/etc. There's no need for a left-eye-blank feature, as that's completely unnecessary and actually detrimental to the experience. You're *supposed* to use both eyes.[/quote]
Yeah again, the two main things working against this solution is 1) we play in 2D with both eyes wide open and 2) Nvidia seems to want to achieve the same thing but in stereo 3D. Realism is not a valid argument if it becomes overly tedious or an impediment to gameplay, which is clearly the case when it comes to aiming. Games don't render fuzzy double vision ironsights when aiming in 2D because its unnecessary and disturbing. People don't squint to aim in 2D for the sake of realism because they're not expecting realism.

As for the rest, it sounds like you haven't played a 3D Vision Ready game yet that aligns crosshairs and ironsights for stereo 3D so you can aim in 3D with both eyes. You may want to reserve judgment on it until you do, because I'm quite confident the overwhelming majority of 3D users would prefer it over a 2D cursor or slightly misaligned ironsight that results in double image while moving and aiming.


[quote]I'm not 100% certain I'm interpreting this sentence correctly, but assuming I am: Left/Right Shift doesn't alter the separation at all -- it's doubled in one direction, reduced to zero in the other. Effectively the center point is shifted over while maintaining the same separation/depth.[/quote]
Yes Likay clarified this in a subsequent post, that the iZ3D driver shifts by the overall same amount as symmetrical. I figured it would be easier for Nvidia to just keep one offset and not shift the original camera at all rather than adding another calculation and shift into the mix.


[quote]I wholeheartedly agree that advanced settings and options need to be more exposed. Convergence is such a basic setting, yet it's disabled by default and even when enabled there's no OSD for it. That's just not cool.
Nevermind that the default convergence and depth settings for literally every game I've played so far are so ridiculously off the mark. They're all very 'safe' values, but they're completely unrealistic.[/quote]
Yes and this points to a recurring theme that shows Nvidia wants to present a friendlier version of 3D to the end-user rather than a potentially problematic or complicated one. One thing I've learned about 3D is that there is no one setting that will make everyone happy, so that's important to keep in mind when making general statements about "safe" or "realistic". Convergence as a setting is only important to me because of the fact 3D settings can be a deeply personal preference so people should be able to set it to what suits them best.

[quote]I personally would immediately disable any such "flatten my view on ironsights" feature. 3D is about more realism and immersion, and that would snatch you right out of it. When I'm playing in 3D, I expect it to be consistently 3D all the time. Changing depth and convergence from simply moving your eyes and gun (in game) constantly makes no sense. With Shift you don't need to ever change anything between hipfire and ironsights. Heck, it even makes hipfire position look better at the convergence/separation settings I use.[/quote]
Yeah, nothing like a bothersome 2D crosshair or misaligned ironsight nagging at your brain while you do your best not to notice it....great way to snatch you right out of any sense of realism or immersion.

If you expect your 3D experience to be consistently 3D all the time, there are better solutions out there than this convergence compensation for 2D crosshairs and ultimately that's where Nvidia's focus is directed.
[quote name='pir0zhki' date='02 January 2012 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1325530115' post='1350573']

I was referring to the implementation by iZ3D, which I've been using for several years now. It's disabled by default, and you can easily switch it to Left or Right Shift, either globally or per game profile. Would not have enjoyed 3D nearly as much without the Left Shift option their driver provides.



I find the concept of independent near-field convergence to be flawed, given that it would result in either 1) offsets of front/rear ironsights/etc that I personally find unacceptable, or 2) a completely 2D weapon in both eyes, and it feels to me as though it would have issues with proper depth and weapon size. I'm not sure I buy that they can make your weapon and environments appear at the appropriate depth and size while having it aligned with both eyes, either, but I may not entirely understand the strange anti-science that is independent separation/convergence. Either way, it's a needlessly complex workaround for something whose most realistic solution is already so simple.



Plus, it makes absolutely zero sense to be able to look through your weapon sights with both eyes at the same time to begin with, that's just silly. We only do it in 2D because there's literally no other way. Either way, I'll be pretty quick to turn this feature off if it's ever implemented. I'm not a cyclops and I have no interest in pretending to be one in a system specifically designed to let me use both my eyes the way they were intended to be used.



I personally find that Left Shift's property of enhanced realism alone makes it an excellent option -- you get the benefits of having proper depth and weapon size, and fully-functional and properly-aligned ironsights. I don't understand your fixation on the "squint" thing. You don't need to do this! ever! I mean, I guess you can if you WANT to, but ask anyone familiar with firearms and they'll tell you NOT to close your left eye when aiming. In addition to being more realistic, your left eye gains an unobstructed view of your target and the environment in front of you. This is how you use *real* ironsights/reddots/scopes/etc. There's no need for a left-eye-blank feature, as that's completely unnecessary and actually detrimental to the experience. You're *supposed* to use both eyes.

Yeah again, the two main things working against this solution is 1) we play in 2D with both eyes wide open and 2) Nvidia seems to want to achieve the same thing but in stereo 3D. Realism is not a valid argument if it becomes overly tedious or an impediment to gameplay, which is clearly the case when it comes to aiming. Games don't render fuzzy double vision ironsights when aiming in 2D because its unnecessary and disturbing. People don't squint to aim in 2D for the sake of realism because they're not expecting realism.



As for the rest, it sounds like you haven't played a 3D Vision Ready game yet that aligns crosshairs and ironsights for stereo 3D so you can aim in 3D with both eyes. You may want to reserve judgment on it until you do, because I'm quite confident the overwhelming majority of 3D users would prefer it over a 2D cursor or slightly misaligned ironsight that results in double image while moving and aiming.





I'm not 100% certain I'm interpreting this sentence correctly, but assuming I am: Left/Right Shift doesn't alter the separation at all -- it's doubled in one direction, reduced to zero in the other. Effectively the center point is shifted over while maintaining the same separation/depth.


Yes Likay clarified this in a subsequent post, that the iZ3D driver shifts by the overall same amount as symmetrical. I figured it would be easier for Nvidia to just keep one offset and not shift the original camera at all rather than adding another calculation and shift into the mix.





I wholeheartedly agree that advanced settings and options need to be more exposed. Convergence is such a basic setting, yet it's disabled by default and even when enabled there's no OSD for it. That's just not cool.

Nevermind that the default convergence and depth settings for literally every game I've played so far are so ridiculously off the mark. They're all very 'safe' values, but they're completely unrealistic.


Yes and this points to a recurring theme that shows Nvidia wants to present a friendlier version of 3D to the end-user rather than a potentially problematic or complicated one. One thing I've learned about 3D is that there is no one setting that will make everyone happy, so that's important to keep in mind when making general statements about "safe" or "realistic". Convergence as a setting is only important to me because of the fact 3D settings can be a deeply personal preference so people should be able to set it to what suits them best.



I personally would immediately disable any such "flatten my view on ironsights" feature. 3D is about more realism and immersion, and that would snatch you right out of it. When I'm playing in 3D, I expect it to be consistently 3D all the time. Changing depth and convergence from simply moving your eyes and gun (in game) constantly makes no sense. With Shift you don't need to ever change anything between hipfire and ironsights. Heck, it even makes hipfire position look better at the convergence/separation settings I use.


Yeah, nothing like a bothersome 2D crosshair or misaligned ironsight nagging at your brain while you do your best not to notice it....great way to snatch you right out of any sense of realism or immersion.



If you expect your 3D experience to be consistently 3D all the time, there are better solutions out there than this convergence compensation for 2D crosshairs and ultimately that's where Nvidia's focus is directed.

-=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

#26
Posted 01/02/2012 11:26 PM   
[quote name='Likay' date='02 January 2012 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1325540526' post='1350665']
Of the principle you describe you're of course right. The iz3d-driver works in the way that the total depth set by the user is shared between the eyes so no compensation is really needed when changing the shiftmode (100%l,100%r or 50%l+50%r). The result looks like this (lasersight turned on):

As you can see the actual depth is the same in all the images even if the separationmode is changed. If l or r shift is turned on noone would probably notice anything different in gameplay/visual appearance except for the lasersight (or a very good memory of the gun placement...).
There's no gain in performance what i noticed by using this feature but it's kinda cool anyway. As said i personally prefer a working lasersight over this feature. When viewing 3d i prefer having both eyes open. /cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cool:' />
[/quote]
Yep that makes sense now, the iZ3D driver just shifts the total amount regardless; I figured the easiest way for Nvidia to accomplish this would be to just shift one camera and not the original camera view. But yes thanks for the pics, very helpful in helping illustrate the results of camera shift to others who wanted to see with their own eyes and weren't sure what to expect. /thanks.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thanks:' />
[quote name='Likay' date='02 January 2012 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1325540526' post='1350665']

Of the principle you describe you're of course right. The iz3d-driver works in the way that the total depth set by the user is shared between the eyes so no compensation is really needed when changing the shiftmode (100%l,100%r or 50%l+50%r). The result looks like this (lasersight turned on):



As you can see the actual depth is the same in all the images even if the separationmode is changed. If l or r shift is turned on noone would probably notice anything different in gameplay/visual appearance except for the lasersight (or a very good memory of the gun placement...).

There's no gain in performance what i noticed by using this feature but it's kinda cool anyway. As said i personally prefer a working lasersight over this feature. When viewing 3d i prefer having both eyes open. /cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cool:' />



Yep that makes sense now, the iZ3D driver just shifts the total amount regardless; I figured the easiest way for Nvidia to accomplish this would be to just shift one camera and not the original camera view. But yes thanks for the pics, very helpful in helping illustrate the results of camera shift to others who wanted to see with their own eyes and weren't sure what to expect. /thanks.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thanks:' />

-=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

#27
Posted 01/02/2012 11:29 PM   
[quote name='chiz' date='02 January 2012 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1325546774' post='1350722']
Realism is not a valid argument if it becomes overly tedious or an impediment to gameplay, which is clearly the case when it comes to aiming.[/quote]
Except it ISN'T overly tedious or an impediment -- It fully enhances the experience in ways you either don't see, or don't understand, or simply don't agree with. You keep talking about squinting and double vision, which doesn't apply to Left/Right Shift at all with optimal settings. In fact, I've been personally finding that the LACK of Left Shift has been a serious tedium/impediment in the games I play that use weapon sights, and that's a very serious problem to me.

[quote name='chiz']
As for the rest, it sounds like you haven't played a 3D Vision Ready game yet that aligns crosshairs and ironsights for stereo 3D so you can aim in 3D with both eyes.
[/quote]
No, I haven't, but what you don't seem to see is that *I don't want to aim using ironsights with both eyes*. It makes no sense to me, it's unrealistic, it's less useful, all for the sake of having your ACOG show up in 3D at a bogus depth? My sights are tools, not pretty decorations. Hold a gun in front of you and look at a distant target, do you see your gun as a solid 3d object along with everything else in the background? No, you see what your eyes see from their positions, and unless you're actually focusing on your gun (and why would you be?) that will result in separate images. And there's nothing wrong with that! It doesn't make your weapon any less usable, and doesn't interfere with your usage of your weapon at all (as I have repeatedly stated, it actually provides an advantage!)


[quote name='chiz']Yes Likay clarified this in a subsequent post, that the iZ3D driver shifts by the overall same amount as symmetrical. I figured it would be easier for Nvidia to just keep one offset and not shift the original camera at all rather than adding another calculation and shift into the mix.[/quote] The extra calculation is so incredibly trivial as to not even be a consideration. It's effectively a matter of checking a registry setting on game launch, and changing a float value/pointer on a keypress or upon loading said setting. It might require one more simple addition operation during setting the viewport positions. This is that simple.



[quote name='chiz']Yes and this points to a recurring theme that shows Nvidia wants to present a friendlier version of 3D to the end-user rather than a potentially problematic or complicated one. One thing I've learned about 3D is that there is no one setting that will make everyone happy, so that's important to keep in mind when making general statements about "safe" or "realistic". Convergence as a setting is only important to me because of the fact 3D settings can be a deeply personal preference so people should be able to set it to what suits them best.[/quote]
Agreed, but I'd take it further in that all 3D settings can be deeply personal. I use 'safe' to refer to the default settings, which attempt to keep all objects within the screen. This results in scenes that appear to have small objects (as interpreted by our brains) and as such are quite unrealistic, but decent starting points to ensure the games just work. We tweak from there. I pull the convergence out so that my gun is between myself and my screen, as it would be were I holding it in real life. This also has the side-effect of bringing the environment much closer to realistic object sizes. Different people have different preferences, and a 3D driver SHOULD allow as much customization as possible, at least within reason. I don't believe this particular feature is an unreasonable request.


[quote name='chiz']Yeah, nothing like a bothersome 2D crosshair or misaligned ironsight nagging at your brain while you do your best not to notice it....great way to snatch you right out of any sense of realism or immersion.

If you expect your 3D experience to be consistently 3D all the time, there are better solutions out there than this convergence compensation for 2D crosshairs and ultimately that's where Nvidia's focus is directed.
[/quote]
Once again, you don't appear to understand the full effect and usage of this feature. The Portal example isn't great, as it doesn't make use of ironsights and the purpose of Shift is not to fix 2d crosshairs. This feature is not one that creates an impediment on the 3D experience at all. It doesn't nag at your brain; but rather quite the opposite -- it's the most natural and realistic way to play, and your brain immediately understands what's going on (or at least mine did).

If it was an impediment, I would NOT do it that way. Simple as that! I use Shift because it's an active enhancement. It makes gameplay more immersive and realistic, and I don't have to squint or close my eye or strain or anything! It Just Works, and I just can't game without it now, it's that awesome. I won't accept any alternative, as every alternative's mere concepts are already inferior, even without knowing implementation details.

You can't see down [b]one sight[/b] with [b]two eyes[/b], it's as simple as that. Doing so removes the advantage of unobscured left eye, while also removing realism [b]completely[/b] while at the same time relying on [b]much more complex operations[/b] to achieve its effect. There are literally zero advantages to using that instead of Left Shift (aside from maybe looking a bit prettier due to the impossible and useless act of both eyes seeing it in the same spot at once, which likely also breaks convergence and depth in ways that require ADDITIONAL operations to work around in their fancy implementation).

Maybe it's fine for games that don't use weapon sights, but for those that do, it's just a lot of unnecessary work. Left Shift is dead simple, elegant, realistic, requires no additional complex operations, and best of all, can be completely optional! Y'know, so we can actually *choose* if we want to use it or not. You use your favorite method, I'll use mine; isn't that how it's supposed to be?



At this point, I do want to get ahold of one of these "3D Vision Ready" games just to say I have tried their method and have a real basis to critique their uselessly complex workaround. In the meantime, I'll be shaking my fist at newegg for not having my CPU cooler delivered in a decent amount of time so I can play some MW3 the way I want to play it. =)
[quote name='chiz' date='02 January 2012 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1325546774' post='1350722']

Realism is not a valid argument if it becomes overly tedious or an impediment to gameplay, which is clearly the case when it comes to aiming.

Except it ISN'T overly tedious or an impediment -- It fully enhances the experience in ways you either don't see, or don't understand, or simply don't agree with. You keep talking about squinting and double vision, which doesn't apply to Left/Right Shift at all with optimal settings. In fact, I've been personally finding that the LACK of Left Shift has been a serious tedium/impediment in the games I play that use weapon sights, and that's a very serious problem to me.



chiz said:

As for the rest, it sounds like you haven't played a 3D Vision Ready game yet that aligns crosshairs and ironsights for stereo 3D so you can aim in 3D with both eyes.



No, I haven't, but what you don't seem to see is that *I don't want to aim using ironsights with both eyes*. It makes no sense to me, it's unrealistic, it's less useful, all for the sake of having your ACOG show up in 3D at a bogus depth? My sights are tools, not pretty decorations. Hold a gun in front of you and look at a distant target, do you see your gun as a solid 3d object along with everything else in the background? No, you see what your eyes see from their positions, and unless you're actually focusing on your gun (and why would you be?) that will result in separate images. And there's nothing wrong with that! It doesn't make your weapon any less usable, and doesn't interfere with your usage of your weapon at all (as I have repeatedly stated, it actually provides an advantage!)





chiz said:Yes Likay clarified this in a subsequent post, that the iZ3D driver shifts by the overall same amount as symmetrical. I figured it would be easier for Nvidia to just keep one offset and not shift the original camera at all rather than adding another calculation and shift into the mix.
The extra calculation is so incredibly trivial as to not even be a consideration. It's effectively a matter of checking a registry setting on game launch, and changing a float value/pointer on a keypress or upon loading said setting. It might require one more simple addition operation during setting the viewport positions. This is that simple.







chiz said:Yes and this points to a recurring theme that shows Nvidia wants to present a friendlier version of 3D to the end-user rather than a potentially problematic or complicated one. One thing I've learned about 3D is that there is no one setting that will make everyone happy, so that's important to keep in mind when making general statements about "safe" or "realistic". Convergence as a setting is only important to me because of the fact 3D settings can be a deeply personal preference so people should be able to set it to what suits them best.


Agreed, but I'd take it further in that all 3D settings can be deeply personal. I use 'safe' to refer to the default settings, which attempt to keep all objects within the screen. This results in scenes that appear to have small objects (as interpreted by our brains) and as such are quite unrealistic, but decent starting points to ensure the games just work. We tweak from there. I pull the convergence out so that my gun is between myself and my screen, as it would be were I holding it in real life. This also has the side-effect of bringing the environment much closer to realistic object sizes. Different people have different preferences, and a 3D driver SHOULD allow as much customization as possible, at least within reason. I don't believe this particular feature is an unreasonable request.





chiz said:Yeah, nothing like a bothersome 2D crosshair or misaligned ironsight nagging at your brain while you do your best not to notice it....great way to snatch you right out of any sense of realism or immersion.



If you expect your 3D experience to be consistently 3D all the time, there are better solutions out there than this convergence compensation for 2D crosshairs and ultimately that's where Nvidia's focus is directed.



Once again, you don't appear to understand the full effect and usage of this feature. The Portal example isn't great, as it doesn't make use of ironsights and the purpose of Shift is not to fix 2d crosshairs. This feature is not one that creates an impediment on the 3D experience at all. It doesn't nag at your brain; but rather quite the opposite -- it's the most natural and realistic way to play, and your brain immediately understands what's going on (or at least mine did).



If it was an impediment, I would NOT do it that way. Simple as that! I use Shift because it's an active enhancement. It makes gameplay more immersive and realistic, and I don't have to squint or close my eye or strain or anything! It Just Works, and I just can't game without it now, it's that awesome. I won't accept any alternative, as every alternative's mere concepts are already inferior, even without knowing implementation details.



You can't see down one sight with two eyes, it's as simple as that. Doing so removes the advantage of unobscured left eye, while also removing realism completely while at the same time relying on much more complex operations to achieve its effect. There are literally zero advantages to using that instead of Left Shift (aside from maybe looking a bit prettier due to the impossible and useless act of both eyes seeing it in the same spot at once, which likely also breaks convergence and depth in ways that require ADDITIONAL operations to work around in their fancy implementation).



Maybe it's fine for games that don't use weapon sights, but for those that do, it's just a lot of unnecessary work. Left Shift is dead simple, elegant, realistic, requires no additional complex operations, and best of all, can be completely optional! Y'know, so we can actually *choose* if we want to use it or not. You use your favorite method, I'll use mine; isn't that how it's supposed to be?







At this point, I do want to get ahold of one of these "3D Vision Ready" games just to say I have tried their method and have a real basis to critique their uselessly complex workaround. In the meantime, I'll be shaking my fist at newegg for not having my CPU cooler delivered in a decent amount of time so I can play some MW3 the way I want to play it. =)

#28
Posted 01/03/2012 12:05 AM   
On a sidenote, I've been playing with DirectX injection a bit. I've managed to, in a few hours' time, create a d3d9.dll hook which applies a Left Shift operation to all calls to SetTransform involving D3DTS_PROJECTION matrices. Works in some games, but unfortunately, not all games use this method (MW3 in particular barely even touches the Direct3DDevice9 object, making it particularly useless for that game), so I'll keep looking for more all-encompassing methods to alter viewport position. It'd be nice to have the same level of Direct3D access that NVIDIA's filter driver has, but I'm not too familiar with DirectX DLLs just yet. Just need to keep digging.
On a sidenote, I've been playing with DirectX injection a bit. I've managed to, in a few hours' time, create a d3d9.dll hook which applies a Left Shift operation to all calls to SetTransform involving D3DTS_PROJECTION matrices. Works in some games, but unfortunately, not all games use this method (MW3 in particular barely even touches the Direct3DDevice9 object, making it particularly useless for that game), so I'll keep looking for more all-encompassing methods to alter viewport position. It'd be nice to have the same level of Direct3D access that NVIDIA's filter driver has, but I'm not too familiar with DirectX DLLs just yet. Just need to keep digging.

#29
Posted 01/03/2012 12:32 AM   
I don't play enough FPS games to know what it's like to switch to an aiming mode, but could the problem be solved by creating a different profile specifically for that viewpoint? If so, it would be wise of NVIDIA allowed you to create multiple profiles for one game, which you could easily swap between with a hotkey of your choosing. For example, the hotkey could be the same button that triggers this different viewpoint.
I don't play enough FPS games to know what it's like to switch to an aiming mode, but could the problem be solved by creating a different profile specifically for that viewpoint? If so, it would be wise of NVIDIA allowed you to create multiple profiles for one game, which you could easily swap between with a hotkey of your choosing. For example, the hotkey could be the same button that triggers this different viewpoint.

#30
Posted 01/03/2012 12:43 AM   
  2 / 3    
Scroll To Top