Lack of 3D depth, just me or...?

[ZZZRonin]

Have you grown? or shrunk? I'm kidding of course. But have your expectations changed? Sometimes coming back to a thing after a while, you remember the experience differently and thus can be a bit disappointed compared to the earlier (rose coloured) experience.

I feel my overall scale is off, my cockpit body feels quite small, like I was 12-13 years old again. Not as tall as I am now (just under 6 feet) and slimmer (defintely not like er... now. lol.

But the cockpits, bridges of the ships, objects in game seem to be the right 'size'. The stars are rendered flat, but that can't be helped - they seem to be rendered maybe 50 feet outside the cockpit to me.
Asteroids look great!

Exactly ! Like stars are at 50 feets only in ED. If you have Virtual Desktop, give a try and compare stars all around you when running it (using the right skybox, there is a few with stars). Now this is like distants stars for me.

 

[Cliché]

But the cockpits, bridges of the ships, objects in game seem to be the right 'size'. The stars are rendered flat, but that can't be helped - they seem to be rendered maybe 50 feet outside the cockpit to me.
Asteroids look great!

If the scale is right for ships and asteroids, that are 10's of meters or a km away, and planets that are hundreds or thousands of km away, how can you say the stars appear only 50 feet away? Don't they have to appear further away than everything else? [yesnod]

Of course the stars are rendered on a sphere, but at light years away, they have to be - there's no point doing it otherwise. I think one of the problems in ED is that the background is just too bright. It's almost like you can see the inside surface of the sphere. Hopefully when they come out with the red tint fix, the blacks will appear black and much darker. The spud tool helps a bit, but then the galaxy starts to glow with banding the further from the local sun you go. Actually, if you are having a banding issue, that may be part of the problem, too. Ideally, we can eventually get some calibration tools.

 

[stevesideas]

A lot of it is to do with clarity of image. When I used the anaglyph method (I had some spare 3d glasses laying around) the 3d is actually very very pronounced when using your high res monitor for the display. It's very cool. I don't get that sensation from the rift. Even things outside the cockpit had good depth with anaglyph for me.

 

[sutex]

A lot of it is to do with clarity of image. When I used the anaglyph method (I had some spare 3d glasses laying around) the 3d is actually very very pronounced when using your high res monitor for the display. It's very cool. I don't get that sensation from the rift. Even things outside the cockpit had good depth with anaglyph for me.

Yes for years now , players been asking FDev's for more 3D glasses support The whole headset VR stuff, is years away from been truly FANTASTIC and there's real limitation on frame rates that most people just don't get, at the moment VR is just a very expensive gimmick.

My Current PC screen has a refresh rate of 144hz , with 3D glasses , would be great !!

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

If the scale is right for ships and asteroids, that are 10's of meters or a km away, and planets that are hundreds or thousands of km away, how can you say the stars appear only 50 feet away? Don't they have to appear further away than everything else? [yesnod]

... The spud tool helps a bit, but then the galaxy starts to glow with banding the further from the local sun you go. Actually, if you are having a banding issue, that may be part of the problem, too. Ideally, we can eventually get some calibration tools.

@Cliché - Yes - the stars are rendered on a 50-60-sided polygonal 'sphere'. If you look carefully, you can see the stars are at slightly different angles depending on which polygon they're being projected onto. Sometimes you can actually make out the boundaries of the polygons (each one is a trapezoid of two triangles), especially when a star happens to fall on the boundary and get 'bent'. They appear a little slanted/distorted.

But no, the skybox is 'physically placed only a short distance away outside the cockpit with your camera viewpoint at the centre (it'd be cool to see an FD 'outside render' of ED - it'd look like a plane simulator cockpit). The stars are not light-years away - they only appear that way. A scene in 3D can be rendered in 'layers' and then composited such that the ships in space can actually be rendered 3-5km away in one layer, but then overlaid on the skybox layer which is much closer. The stars are closer but still appear behind the ships/planets etc. Trickery!

The skybox is also rendered once - i.e. the same image is used in both eyes. It is far enough away so you can't tell, although some are more sensitive to it and do notice. I do, but only when I think about it "You are now aware of your own breathing" style. Obviously real stars are seen in steroe too, and the small differences in our eyes structure and interpretation gives the illusion of distance even if there is zero parallax.

The close skybox is also part of the reason why the free camera won't go out very far - you'd end up outside the skybox and go all Interstellar...

Some are more sensitive to it than others - the closed-in skybox, the small pilot avatar etc. Or hardware/optics effects like the god-rays, red tint or screen-door effect. We all seem to have our favourite bugbears, and level of annoyance with them.

I'm with you - more transparency, more tools, more exploration of the VR pipeline by a lot of 'crowd-sourced perceptual opinions' will go a long way to optimising the technology as it evolves.

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

A lot of it is to do with clarity of image. When I used the anaglyph method (I had some spare 3d glasses laying around) the 3d is actually very very pronounced when using your high res monitor for the display. It's very cool. I don't get that sensation from the rift. Even things outside the cockpit had good depth with anaglyph for me.

The pronounced effect in anaglyph 3D is because its usually exaggerated - ie the IPD distance between the two camera viewpoints is wider than normal. +10% or more IPD (in-game) has a big effect.

VR in ED is realistic (60-70mm IPD effective), so no exaggeration, so no more or less depth than the real monitor in front of you.

We all have different perceptual sensitivities to depth, and some don't move their heads the same way as others. A cat will move its head from side to side before pouncing - this improves the perception of depth and makes the pounce that much more precise. Predatory snakes often do the same thing. We humans are a bit lazy, and sitting static in a chair tends to reduce our 'need' for accurate depth perception, as ytou're not going to fall over.

Try looking at a similar scene while standing up (like you had a standing-up desk with monitor etc, or items on a mantlepiece above a fireplace - you should notice a (slight) improvement as you'll be more aware of depth now that you're standing as the brain tries to avoid falling over. Standing, you're in a constant state of motion, which forces you to be more alert (well, most of us anyway!)...

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Yes for years now , players been asking FDev's for more 3D glasses support The whole headset VR stuff, is years away from been truly FANTASTIC and there's real limitation on frame rates that most people just don't get, at the moment VR is just a very expensive gimmick.

My Current PC screen has a refresh rate of 144hz , with 3D glasses , would be great !!

Utter rot. VR as it is today is breathtaking. 3D glasses and monitors is rubbish and I was doing that back in 2001. Move on, people.

 

[sutex]

Utter rot. VR as it is today is breathtaking. 3D glasses and monitors is rubbish and I was doing that back in 2001. Move on, people.

Bit of bias there ..given rate of 144hz , VR is never going to happen , within the lifetime of ED

Unless http://www.digitaltrends.com/virtual-reality/nvidia-1700hz-vr-display/

 

[Ian Phillips]

Bit of bias there ..given rate of 144hz , VR is never going to happen , within the lifetime of ED ,for sure

Afraid that you are wrong there.

VR is being actively used to develop commercial programs by my employer, which is not a games making company. VR is not simply a niche phenmenon restricted to the games and entertainment industry any more, its a rapidly growing part of development of software and applications for businesses.

 

[sutex]

Afraid that you are wrong there.

VR is being actively used to develop commercial programs by my employer, which is not a games making company. VR is not simply a niche phenmenon restricted to the games and entertainment industry any more, its a rapidly growing part of development of software and applications for businesses.

Not saying that,^^ am saying. screen rates are NOW higher than VR

VR reaching anything like that , is either years away ,and/or an expensive rebuilt of your current PC , supporting VR though Glasses allows VR in ED now with your 'now' current higher frame rates via your screen

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Not saying that, ... screen rates are NOW higher than VR

VR reaching anything like that , is either years away ,and/or an expensive rebuilt of your current PC , supporting VR though Glasses allows VR in ED now with your 'now' current higher frame rates via your screen

Again, utter rot.

Anyway, 90fps is more than enough. Monitors are just rubbish compared to VR.

 

[sutex]

Again, utter rot.

Anyway, 90fps is more than enough. Monitors are just rubbish compared to VR.

What is it with you and utter rot , 90fps is good enough , its not the point

Screen refresh rates are higher than VR , it's that simple , so why no support for Glasses by ED, and why is it you have a problem with that ? . well clearly you think glasses are utter rot ..lol

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

What is it with you and utter rot , 90fps is good enough , its not the point

Screen refresh rates are higher than VR , it's that simple , so why no support for Glasses by ED, and why is it you have a problem with that ? . well clearly you think glasses are utter rot ..lol

It would be a waste of FD's resources to offer support for a redundant technology that is going absolutely nowhere.

 

[sutex]

It would be a waste of FD's resources to offer support for a redundant technology that is going absolutely nowhere.

In your opinion... which seem to me once again based in bias, you luv VR headsets...in any event lets think this out, reasonably.

Glasses wrap around that have the same FOV as VR headgear today, and your saying this is utter rot , because the tech on the PC side wouldn't be able to deliver the same VR experience as the current VR headset do , apparently , correct ?

If so I disagree, I think VR headset will one day be cool, BUT VR glasses using your current Screen a refresh rate of 144hz , if developed/supported should be able to deliver a VR experience to players now which should surpassed current VR tech .. is a now or later , approach put up with VR headset tech as it is now, or wait ..


Much rather have glasses supported , as most have the higher rate screens already

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

In your opinion... which seem to me once again based in bias, you luv VR headsets...in any event lets think this out, reasonably.

Glasses wrap around that have the same FOV as VR headgear today, and your saying this is utter rot , because the tech on the PC side wouldn't be able to deliver the same VR experience as the current VR headset do , apparently , correct ?

If so I disagree, I think VR headset will one day be cool, BUT VR glasses using your current Screen a refresh rate of 144hz , if developed/supported should be able to deliver a VR experience to players now which should surpassed current VR tech .. is a now or later , approach put up with VR headset tech as it is now, or wait ..


Much rather have glasses supported , as most have the higher rate screens already

You've obviously never tried VR. I'm very happy with what I have now and I'm looking forward to even better VR in the future. What I'm not interested in is 3D glasses and, btw, their FOV is nowhere near that of VR.

 

[Cliché]

@Cliché - Yes - the stars are rendered on a 50-60-sided polygonal 'sphere'. If you look carefully, you can see the stars are at slightly different angles depending on which polygon they're being projected onto. Sometimes you can actually make out the boundaries of the polygons (each one is a trapezoid of two triangles), especially when a star happens to fall on the boundary and get 'bent'. They appear a little slanted/distorted.

I may have noticed something like this in the past. I clearly remember, at least once, thinking the stars looked too close. But in the past week, since using the spud tool, the background is too dark to see and the stars appear to be much further away. I'll have to take a closer look, both with spud and without, to be sure.


@sutex
I'm not aware of VR glasses that can be used with a monitor (please correct me if I'm wrong). A big monitor may have the same FOV as an HMD, but only when looking straight ahead. Once you throw in head tracking and moving your head away from the monitor, with exaggerated head movement via TrackIR or whatever, with your head actually pointing toward the bookcase and peeking at your monitor through the corner of your eye, it becomes pretty clear that you are not in a virtual reality. Actually, just seeing the monitor bezel and the bits of desk and wall and keyboard and mouse and speakers and etc. is enough to ruin immersion of being there in VR. So while 3D glasses and a big monitor may be cool, and better than 2D, I don't think the experience compares to VR. And VR is here, now, and it's awesome.

 

[sutex]

You've obviously never tried VR. I'm very happy with what I have now and I'm looking forward to even better VR in the future. What I'm not interested in is 3D glasses and, btw, their FOV is nowhere near that of VR.

Your skirting the questions, which leaves open if Glasses if developed and supported by ED would surpassed current VR headsets, as it is now and into the near future ( years), which of course it would , with FOV improvements of course hence the wrap around ^^ mention above

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I may have noticed something like this in the past. I clearly remember, at least once, thinking the start looked too close. But in the past week, since using the spud tool, the background is too dark to see and the stars appear to be much further away. I'll have to take a closer look, both with spud and without, to be sure.


@sutex
I'm not aware of VR glasses that can be used with a monitor (please correct me if I'm wrong). A big monitor may have the same FOV as an HMD, but only when looking straight ahead. Once you throw in head tracking and moving your head away from the monitor, with exaggerated head movement via TrackIR or whatever, with your head actually pointing toward the bookcase and peeking at your monitor through the corner of your eye, it becomes pretty clear that you are not in a virtual reality. Actually, just seeing the monitor bezel and the bits of desk and wall and keyboard and mouse and speakers and etc. is enough to ruin immersion of being there in VR. So while 3D glasses and a big monitor may be cool, and better than 2D, I don't think the experience compares to VR. And VR is here, now, and it's awesome.

At the moment VR glasses are glasses , they are not wrap around , an important point.. glasses that are wrap around , that uses your current screen refresh rates ie 144hz , should be able to give you the VR we all want

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Your skirting the questions, which leaves open if Glasses if developed and supported by ED would surpassed current VR headsets, as it is now and into the near future ( years), which of course it would , with FOV improvements of course hence the wrap around ^^ mention above

Not skirting anything. 3D glasses only have the FOV of the monitor you are looking at, which is tiny when compared to VR.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

At the moment VR glasses are glasses , they are not wrap around , an important point.. glasses that are wrap around , that uses your current screen refresh rates ie 144hz , should be able to give you the VR we all want

They won't be glasses, though, will they, they would be VR HMDs and they are already in development. Supporting 3D passive or active glasses is a waste of time and will not aid the development of the next generation of VR. You know, I not sure you fully grasp the different between these two technologies.

 

[Magic Man]

90fps is more than enough

No it's not.

. Monitors are just rubbish compared to VR.

Totally daft statement.

 

[PetroVitallini]

About un-realistic 3D from exaggerated convergence, I for one would love to have the ability to adjust this on the rift.