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

[BigDuke6ixx]

No it's not.



Totally daft statement.

90fps is enough for VR users competing at the highest level in iRacing, so I'm not sure you can prove your assertion that 90 is inadequate. As for monitors, they are small so all objects are out of scale and there is no immersion, which is rubbish for 2016 and games like ED.


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

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

What does that even mean?

 

[CylonSurfer]

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 - - - - -








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.

^ This is 100% true, SUTEX you are being a fool. 3D glasses do not compare to VR HMDs, to say they do is absurd. VR Glasses that use your current monitor... Whaaaat? Clearly you do not understand what VR is.

BTW, isn't there a mod for 3D vision support by one of the Helix guys - AndySonofBob maybe? Should be nothing preventing you from using your abandonware glasses. You can have mine as well if you like, never used them after using a DK1 for the first time. VR was the natural evolution of that technology, the glasses have been supassed, you also realise that your 144Hz display is only showing 72Hz per eye right while you use your glasses, thats how active glasses work.... that is less than the 90 current VR headsets use.

 

[Soda Popinski]

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!

Just to point out the fact that past 20 or 30 feet, we get our depth cues from scale and atmospheric loss of contrast, I recall the first time I saw the Grand Canyon, it was an especially clear day, and this enormous landscape looked like a giant, beautiful flat postcard. Lighting probably didn't help either. It didn't seem real, and the sense of depth was completely off. Clearly, I can't blame VR for this, as I was really there. Went back recently, and could really get a sense of depth with the atmospheric effects.

Interestingly, there are instances of indigenous peoples (mostly in the Amazon) who live their entire lives in the rain forest. Studies show, they have difficulty processing and perceiving what's going on in long large vistas. They can tell you how many grubs there are on the surface of a tree relatively close by, but outside the rain forest, it gets difficult to comprehend what's going on half a mile away.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Just to point out the fact that past 20 or 30 feet, we get our depth cues from scale and atmospheric loss of contrast, I recall the first time I saw the Grand Canyon, it was an especially clear day, and this enormous landscape looked like a giant, beautiful flat postcard. Lighting probably didn't help either. It didn't seem real, and the sense of depth was completely off. Clearly, I can't blame VR for this, as I was really there. Went back recently, and could really get a sense of depth with the atmospheric effects.

Interestingly, there are instances of indigenous peoples (mostly in the Amazon) who live their entire lives in the rain forest. Studies show, they have difficulty processing and perceiving what's going on in long large vistas. They can tell you how many grubs there are on the surface of a tree relatively close by, but outside the rain forest, it gets difficult to comprehend what's going on half a mile away.

Yes, it's amazing the level of ignorance re basic science and basic physics on this site. Anyone who has look up at a full moon will surely have noticed that it look like a flat disc.

 

[Hempstead]

@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.

That's probably not entirely true. The skybox used in ED is a 6 sided cube.

I happened to encounter a bug with my old R9-290X and CV1, with which after some game time, about 20 jumps, the texture would get blocky with psychedelic colors starting from the bottom of the screen inside the ship, and with more jumps, it get progressively worse extending up to the top of the screen, and eventually the skybox gets blocky. This happened to show me clearly that the skybox is a 6-sided cube. Well, I did "stick" my head out of the cockpit to take a peek (climb up my chair).

Unfortunately, the attachments on ED forum does not directly accept PNG or BMP-like files. And I am too lazy to post the screenshot online. Moreover, to fully "see" that it's a 6 sided cube, you really have to look around (too narrow the field of view), even though I have a screenshot of a corner of the skybox which "sort of" let you see it's a cube, but it's not entirely self-evident.

A 6-sided skybox has its advantages over a skydome. One of them being the parallel projection is simple -- for Z=0 plane projection, just set Z=0, done. Projection to a skydome is not difficult at all, but it does involve floating point calculation, which is an order of magnitude computationally more expensive than setting Z = 0 or Z = 50'.

But I do agree that the skybox is about 50' from the PoV; I mean, it didn't look farther than the Douglas Fir tree in my yard. However, I suck at distance estimation, so take that with a large grain of salt. Assuming the about 50' is true, then, everything within the skybox must have been scaled down accordingly (not necessarily linearly scaled down though), because by its spec. the nose of my Fed. Corvette would have been longer than 50' extruding outside of the skybox if it were rendered to scale.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

But I do agree that the skybox is about 50' from the PoV; I mean, it didn't look farther than the Douglas Fir tree in my yard. However, I suck at distance estimation, so take that with a large grain of salt. Assuming the about 50' is true, then, everything within the skybox must have been scaled down accordingly (not necessarily linearly scaled down though), because by its spec. the nose of my Fed. Corvette would have been longer than 50' extruding outside of the skybox if it were rendered to scale.

If I land inside a massive crater and look up to the rim, kilometres ways, and the Milkyway beyond that, no way is my brain telling me that the star field is only 50' away.

 

[Hempstead]

If I land inside a massive crater and look up to the rim, kilometres ways, and the Milkyway beyond that, no way is my brain telling me that the star field is only 50' away.

Neither could I tell... but with the psychedelic colors showing me the corners, and by taking the CV1 on and off to see my Douglas Fir tree, only then could I tell it's about the same distance as the fir tree. Before that... I had the "feeling" the skybox was not rendered at infinity, but how far? I couldn't venture a guess.

 

[Soda Popinski]

The 50' thing might be a function of where the image in the VR headset's focus is set to.

 

[PetroVitallini]

90fps is enough for VR users competing at the highest level in iRacing, so I'm not sure you can prove your assertion that 90 is inadequate. As for monitors, they are small so all objects are out of scale and there is no immersion, which is rubbish for 2016 and games like ED.


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



What does that even mean?

What I mean is that on my nvidia 3Dvision compatible screen I can adjust convergence which enhance the 3D effect. When adjusting this I can get a weak 3D effect that I would describe as perhaps 2 layers of depth to feeling like you are looking into a portal of another world. It might be totally unrealistic and might not apply to a vr hmd, but if it was possible adjustability is always a good thing in a device.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

What I mean is that on my nvidia 3Dvision compatible screen I can adjust convergence which enhance the 3D effect. When adjusting this I can get a weak 3D effect that I would describe as perhaps 2 layers of depth to feeling like you are looking into a portal of another world. It might be totally unrealistic and might not apply to a vr hmd, but if it was possible adjustability is always a good thing in a device.

Pointless in VR in my opinion, where IPD is the only relevant adjustment.

 

[PetroVitallini]

Yeah, if convergence adjustment is not used in a VR HMD or it's runtime/sdk that is not an option. Anyways, I guess as far as my first post is concerned it might just be that I've grown accustomed to vr or become a bit jaded.

 

[vic]

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 - - - - -


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

Are you kidding me comparing VR with boring 3D glasses?! Please go play ED in VR , THEN get back here. Yes VR headsets don't have the large FOV yet, but still, it beats the crap out of 3D glasses.
Maybe you shoud scout some other forum as this forum is for VR users......

 

[Cliché]

I played with spud and the gamma setting, and yeah, If I try really hard, I can temporarily convince myself the stars are only 50' away. But it's a lot easier to convince myself that the planet/moon I'm flying past is only 10' in diameter and 15' away; however, I don't get the point of thinking like that, because the overwhelming feeling is that the stars are light years away and the moon is thousands of km away.

And no matter how hard I tried, I saw no evidence of a 6-sided or 20-sided sky box. With spud off and gamma at min, I couldn't even trick myself into thinking the stars were closer than the almost infinite distance they appeared.

It makes me wonder if there is a graphics setting or bug, or something wrong with some rifts, that makes the sky box appear, or makes it hard for some to perceive the illusion of great distance in VR. Or maybe it's just the brain not willing to surrender to the immersion and illusion of being out in space. I'd certainly suggest turning the gamma down and see what happens.

Anyway, it's apparently not a problem for me. I'm just patiently waiting for the red tint and banding fixes from FD. [where is it]

 

[sutex]

^ This is 100% true, SUTEX you are being a fool. 3D glasses do not compare to VR HMDs, to say they do is absurd. VR Glasses that use your current monitor... Whaaaat? Clearly you do not understand what VR is.

BTW, isn't there a mod for 3D vision support by one of the Helix guys - AndySonofBob maybe? Should be nothing preventing you from using your abandonware glasses. You can have mine as well if you like, never used them after using a DK1 for the first time. VR was the natural evolution of that technology, the glasses have been supassed, you also realise that your 144Hz display is only showing 72Hz per eye right while you use your glasses, thats how active glasses work.... that is less than the 90 current VR headsets use.

Another thread with insulting frontier gremlins coming out

CylonSurfer, at what point did I ever say GLASSES compared to VR HMD as it is NOW

What I have asked IS , if the glasses tech was further developed & not stalled as is it , would it THEN be able to be on Par or EVEN better than CURRENT VR Headset, That's a question !!!

What I've also been saying is, it would be good of ED to support glasses tech in its current state, as players who have a Higher refresh rate screens & glasses , would benefit, now until VR is far better than its current state AND Cheaper than the current $700+ for most nations outside of wherever their made

But I have no interest in trying to discuss this , any further.

I wont be buying VR until it is far cheaper and a lot better , than it is now

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

Don't 144Hz 3D monitors do 3D at 72Hz? (Could be wrong there, just something I recalled).

I don't think glasses would compare - you'd still be looking at the monitor with a relatively narrow field of view. VR puts you 'inside the monitor' as it were and even with the impaired VR FoV we see now, its still a lot better than 3D glasses/monitor would enable.

Plus you have instant head tracking - its not all about being in 3D, but the ability to peer around, over and past things that we do naturally in everyday life, that makes immersive VR really special. You're not having to fight the display technology to "feel like you're there".

 

[CylonSurfer]

Another thread with insulting frontier gremlins coming out

CylonSurfer, at what point did I ever say GLASSES compared to VR HMD as it is NOW

What I have asked IS , if the glasses tech was further developed & not stalled as is it , would it THEN be able to be on Par or EVEN better than CURRENT VR Headset, That's a question !!!

What I've also been saying is, it would be good of ED to support glasses tech in its current state, as players who have a Higher refresh rate screens & glasses , would benefit, now until VR is far better than its current state AND Cheaper than the current $700+ for most nations outside of wherever their made

But I have no interest in trying to discuss this , any further.

I wont be buying VR until it is far cheaper and a lot better , than it is now

And to answer you, yet again, no it wouldn't. 3D glasses do not come close to VR if developed further or not. FDEV do support 3D glasses, there are options for them in game, just not your specific glasses. However and as I helpfully told you, there is a mod for those. Enjoy your 3D glasses and I'm sorry to hear you cannot afford to buy into VR at this time.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Don't 144Hz 3D monitors do 3D at 72Hz? (Could be wrong there, just something I recalled).

I don't think glasses would compare - you'd still be looking at the monitor with a relatively narrow field of view. VR puts you 'inside the monitor' as it were and even with the impaired VR FoV we see now, its still a lot better than 3D glasses/monitor would enable.

Plus you have instant head tracking - its not all about being in 3D, but the ability to peer around, over and past things that we do naturally in everyday life, that makes immersive VR really special. You're not having to fight the display technology to "feel like you're there".

Yes it's half the refresh per channel. Waste of time talking to that guy because he's one of the people who just doesn't understand the subject matter. How on earth are 3D glasses ever going to be like ? Guy's a troll.

 

[sutex]

CylonSurfer

BigDuke6ixx



I just going to ignore you both , enough of your insults

 

[CylonSurfer]

CylonSurfer

BigDuke6ixx



I just going to ignore you both , enough of your insults

People who are providing you with facts which contradict your own opinion are not people who are being insulting. You clearly do not understand the subject matter and people are merely trying to educate you by providing factual information. People do not like being wrong, maybe that is your issue?

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Another thread with insulting frontier gremlins coming out

CylonSurfer, at what point did I ever say GLASSES compared to VR HMD as it is NOW

What I have asked IS , if the glasses tech was further developed & not stalled as is it , would it THEN be able to be on Par or EVEN better than CURRENT VR Headset, That's a question !!!

No, 3D glasses will never be on a par with VR HMDs. How could you ever imagine that they could be?