Let's talk about the other 3D

[amadeus1171]

VR may be superior, but not everyone can afford VR or has the stomach for it. nVidia vision is a mature technology that is tried and true.

As for 3D vision being "last [sic]nights flat warm beer," that's the same thing they said about radio and Trump.

nVidia's 3D vision is different from ED's anaglyph mode. Not only does it offer passive 3D through anaglyph glasses, which give a surprisingly good representation of the original color, but it also offers active 3D through the use of shutters. There is an additional investment for active 3D, however. You have to invest in a 120 hz monitor, an infrared transmitter (if the monitor doesn't already have one), and the glasses itself, all of which would total about $300, give or take.

Also, as described in one of my posts above, VR is currently ridiculously expensive. On top of that, you have to deal with nausea over long usage, and you cannot see the outside world. nVidia's 3D vision has a distinct advantage that you can actually see your keyboard and HOTAS, and still be fully immersed in the game.

IMHO, no'one should vote no because there are only positives in supporting nVidia's vision. The API is mature and there are tons of support for it. And it will also offer players a cheaper alternative to full VR. That is, an investment as small as $5 for a pair of anaglyph glasses vs a upgraded ring, a 1070 nVidia card, and the HMD itself. That could set someone back a pretty penny. It also offers new players a virtually risk free 3D environment that you cannot risk with VR. And another big advantage in 3D vision is that your buddy can watch you play, in 3D! As far as I know, the only way an external viewer can watch you play with a HMD is through a 2D view. That's not very exciting.

 

[dunnst]

3D shutter glasses is what I had in 2003. They will get you headache after some 45 minutes, to some people sooner. Monitor or TV with polarisation and passive glasses is much more acceptable, that is the way 3D is created in a cinema and gives headache only to some very sensitive people.

 

[amadeus1171]

Thread update:

I found "The Guardians" HELIX MOD.

The starfield appears too close. I'm going to try and tweak it.

By the way, if you have an extra pair of anaglyph glasses you can remove one of the red lens and super glue it over the pair you wear. Just wait till the glue completely dries so that it doesn't irritate your eyes. It works for me.

 

[Soon(TM)]

Voted no in the related poll here, but only because I know that VR is superior in every way and I want any dev time to be dedicated to that instead. In a couple of years nvidia 3d vision will be last nights flat warm beer and VR will be the cats pajamas.

Naa, your probably wrong.

VR is expensive, you have to wear it on your face so you can't do anything else, your tethered to your PC with a cable, you need a powerful PC.

Other 3D options are much cheaper, less restrictive and don't require an uber PC.

Heck, 3d anaglyph works with a set of glasses for £0.99.

I think there's a lot of life left in these alternatives yet.

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

Thread update:

I found "The Guardians" HELIX MOD.

The starfield appears too close. I'm going to try and tweak it.

By the way, if you have an extra pair of anaglyph glasses you can remove one of the red lens and super glue it over the pair you wear. Just wait till the glue completely dries so that it doesn't irritate your eyes. It works for me.

If you find the perfect setting please let me know, I have a pair of glasses on order and my head tracking is set up already.

Does the second blue lens make a big difference?

 

[NW3]

Does the second blue lens make a big difference?

I only have a single pair of glasses, so I cannot be sure, but I think so. The pair I have has a significant amount of bleed-through from the blue (cyan) lens, compared to the red one. You can determine the bleed yourself. Look at a bright star that's a few pixels across and close one eye, then the other. If you see a shadow star, there's bleed-through. The brighter it is, the more bleed there is.

I'm hoping the high-quality glasses I'm getting will improve the situation. FWIW, the NVidia driver 3D has less bleed that the in-game 3D. Unfortunately, using NVidia's 3D has messed up cockpit displays. Theoretically, the Helix Mod is an improvement; I haven't tried it, since the program notes mention it's incompatible with other stuff I run, like MSI Afterburner.

 

[NW3]

I've determined the source of the in-game anaglyph color problem. (I'm a programmer.) I've submitted a bug, with the solution (green channel is actually using the red channel for its source). Hopefully, FD will now fix it.

Unfortunately, NVidia's anaglyph mode has problems with objects (like the galaxy in the skybox) being drawn at the wrong depth, which is very annoying.

My new anaglyph clip-on lenses came today. http://www.ultimate3dheaven.com/propqucl.html

Even a quality pair is exhibiting the ghosting problem. The ghosting is almost gone, if I also use the cheap cardboard pair also. When FD fixes the anaglyph color problem, I'll buy a second set: That is, a regular pair of glasses, plus the clip-on lenses, which should work pretty well together.

 

[CylonSurfer]

Naa, your probably wrong.

VR is expensive, you have to wear it on your face so you can't do anything else, your tethered to your PC with a cable, you need a powerful PC.

Other 3D options are much cheaper, less restrictive and don't require an uber PC.

Heck, 3d anaglyph works with a set of glasses for £0.99.

I think there's a lot of life left in these alternatives yet.

Apart from the fact that 3D gaming failed nearly a decade ago. The only thing keeping some life in its corpse was the Helix community.

Also contrary to your post. Gaming in true 3D does require a good hardware as the double rendering uses more GPU, a proper display will also put you back over £100, same again for proper glasses.

Anaglyph 3D is very poor. A cheap step up into the VR? it's not even close. No point kidding yourselves, even strapping a headtracking on won't lift this tech enough. Been there and done this year's ago, your simply kicking a dead body with this.

 

[amadeus1171]

It's awesome that you have an HMD! I would love one, but it's too expensive. Slapping on a pair of anaglyph glasses works for me, for now. I've viewed some other demos on the nVidia 3D vision site and I'm absolutely blown away.

 

[CylonSurfer]

It's awesome that you have an HMD! I would love one, but it's too expensive. Slapping on a pair of anaglyph glasses works for me, for now. I've viewed some other demos on the nVidia 3D vision site and I'm absolutely blown away.

Pre-VR HMDs - 3D Vision was the most immersive way to play games imo. Sadly it failed to get enough traction and thus never really took off and was rarely intigrated correctly in games, if at all. 3D Vision was essentially kept on life support by a small number of people who create shader hacks in attempts to fix games - they are good but often still have minor issues. Being an avid user of the technology for many, many years - even pre-dating Nivida's 3D Vision / 3DTV Play software, I can say its almost as expensive as VR if you are serious about. High end SLI rigs are common place in the 3D community, as well as good displays to reduce the cross talk effect which isnt really fixable any way.

I don't dislike 3D Vision, its simply obsolete now and doesn't compare in any way to VR.

 

[Soon(TM)]

Apart from the fact that 3D gaming failed nearly a decade ago. The only thing keeping some life in its corpse was the Helix community.

Also contrary to your post. Gaming in true 3D does require a good hardware as the double rendering uses more GPU, a proper display will also put you back over £100, same again for proper glasses.

Anaglyph 3D is very poor. A cheap step up into the VR? it's not even close. No point kidding yourselves, even strapping a headtracking on won't lift this tech enough. Been there and done this year's ago, your simply kicking a dead body with this.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Even if it's wrong.

 

[TKensington]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Even if it's wrong.

Agree. I have a Rift but there are times when I'd love to use my 3d Vision kit and 144hz monitor because 1) it doesn't get hot and 2) I have way too many things going on around me to wear my Rift while playing.

 

[amadeus1171]

Pre-VR HMDs - 3D Vision was the most immersive way to play games imo. Sadly it failed to get enough traction and thus never really took off and was rarely intigrated correctly in games, if at all. 3D Vision was essentially kept on life support by a small number of people who create shader hacks in attempts to fix games - they are good but often still have minor issues. Being an avid user of the technology for many, many years - even pre-dating Nivida's 3D Vision / 3DTV Play software, I can say its almost as expensive as VR if you are serious about. High end SLI rigs are common place in the 3D community, as well as good displays to reduce the cross talk effect which isnt really fixable any way.

I don't dislike 3D Vision, its simply obsolete now and doesn't compare in any way to VR.

3D vision for Elite: Dangerous isn't expensive.

The minimum you need is a contemorary nVidia card and anaglyph glasses. I have 5 y/o PC with a gtx 970 and it runs just fine. If I wanted the shutter option, I would need a 120+ refresh rate monitor, which doing a quick search costs about $150, and the 3d Vision kit which costs about $120.

If I wanted to run a HMD I would have to first upgrade my PC because it is woefully old. That would cost me about $600 for a decent PC. Next, I would have to upgrade my video card because the 970 just won't cut it. I would need at least a 1070 which is about $400. And finally, I would need the HMD itself which would cost $600+.

Now lets compare. I have 3D right now for the measly price of a pair of $5 anaglyph glasses. If I wanted VR I whould have to shell out $1,600. Yeah, I think I'll stick with my anaglyph for now. However, if I wanted to upgrade to the shutter option, I would have to shell out $270.

While 3D may not be as immersive as a HMD, it's much cheaper and still gives that immersive feeling.

Addendum:

How many times do I have to make this argument? 3D is a cheaper option than an HMD and it's sufficient for me. I'm not knocking the HMD guys. It works for you. That's swell. But for me, I'm not going to shell out $1,600 for that immersive feeling when a $5 pair of analgyph glasses does just fine.

Further, it would behoove FD to explore improving support for 3D vision. It's a win win situation. You can demonstrate Elite: Dangerous with 3D vision to get more commanders interested in the game, and if they want to get a better immersive experience they can go the HMD route.

What's there not to understand?

 

[Steph]

If anyone here is going to be at Fantasticon next week, FDev could be asked directly about it for their current perspective w.r.t. 3DVision etc?

 

[Iain L]

Red/Green 3D is really, really ugly, and TVs that do full-colour 3D with the glasses are abundant (though admittedly less than they were, as 4K wisely left 3D out of the spec). Elite is one of the very small number of games that includes its own side-by-side 3D support, so you don't even need to hand NVidia money to unlock the 3D capabilities of the video card you already own.

But it's a five-minute wonder, I found. The extra clarity of regular 2D is worth more to me than a bit of depth perception.

 

[CylonSurfer]

What's there not to understand?

Errmmm, aside from the fact that you enjoy it (which I did / do as well), perhaps that FDEV and likely most other companies are not going to spend time or money on dead tech? That was the state of 3D gaming 3 or more years ago - its worse now... You are flogging a dead horse, the same dead horse that people like myself flogged for a decade or more before eventually giving up and moving on.

Sounds like you have Rift min spec PC on your hands... To upgrade it "could" cost as little as $599 compared to the $270 for the 3D Vision display and glasses - so just about $330 in it really. You may even pick up a used DK2 for less than £270. The GPU requirements for 3D and running VR are not massively different, just a little extra rendering power for the additional FOV a VR HMD will provide.

No one is knocking you for enjoying 3D gaming, but you really need to manage your expectations in regards to the support you'll likely see for 3D gaming - which in all likelihood will be next to none. Sad but true, the whole "3D gives you headaches, I'm not even going to try it", "I'm not wearing 3D glasses, you look stupid" crowd killed 3D gaming before it even started.

I'm not going to shell out $1,600 for that immersive feeling when a $5 pair of analgyph glasses does just fine.

Anaglyph 3D and VR are not comparable in any way, if they were I think HTC and Oculus would be quite concerned. I've not tried Analgyph - do you need special glasses to enjoy that too? I'm at work so I dare not look up what it is even

 

[Iain L]

In my experience the headaches are genuine; I can't play or watch for more than 30 minutes or so. I don't entirely regret buying all the equipment to confirm my suspicion, because I was really interested in what I was missing out on. But 3D glasses just didn't work out for me at all.

Not everyone gets them. But enough that you've got to be feeling quite brave to hand over a substantial amount of money for what could be a novelty.

 

[Kizbot]

Naa, your probably wrong.

VR is expensive, you have to wear it on your face so you can't do anything else, your tethered to your PC with a cable, you need a powerful PC.

Other 3D options are much cheaper, less restrictive and don't require an uber PC.

Heck, 3d anaglyph works with a set of glasses for £0.99.

I think there's a lot of life left in these alternatives yet.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Even if it's wrong.

The problem I see here though is that yes, there are other options but they are not comparable. I may be able to buy a Saw from Poundland but I'm never in my life going to compare it to a £500 Chainsaw.
I used to use nvidia's 3d anaglyph glasses to play L4D2 and it was pretty fun at the time. I now use a DK2 to play Elite dangerous. To compare them would be very unfair to either as the result is a world apart.

As I was talking about in a couple of years time.. I going to bet that VR HMD's will be wireless and lighter by then. They will always be more expensive sure, that's the premium you have to pay for a MUCH more immersive gaming experience. You know that nvidia have offered 3d anaglyph in there drivers for nearly 10 years, but mainly because the colours suck it never got traction. When was the last time you saw an advert boasting that X supports nvidia 3d vision? I'm not so confident there is much life left in them, considering they never really took off in the first place. 3D TV's never caught on either, you walk into Currys now and its all about selling 4K Smart TVs because they know 3D flopped. Having tried out a 3d TV, I can see why. They are underwhelming.

VR is only just starting and in many other people's opinion it hasnt taken off yet either but VR has major game platforms dedicating effort and funding towards it (Valve, HTC, Oculus, Sony plus many more entering the market, as well as AR from Microsoft) where as other forms like you mention have never received the same amount of commercial interest. VR as it is now, the resolution is underwhelming but the immersion is overly impressive.

3d vision and Anaglyph where nearly dead on arrival. VR currently has a pulse.

 

[dangerousbeans]

I have an acer 3d monitor and occasionally use nVidia's 3D vision glasses, its a nice effect, the station has depth and looking out the windows really makes you feel your in a spaceship. Nice when mining too. Best use I've found for 3D glasses was the "Trine" games. http://www.frozenbyte.com/games/trine-3-the-artifacts-of-power

But, I can't seem to get the ED menus working right, i.e. some text is broken "in two" and its horrible to use when playing, so always end up turning it off during the session.

Borrowed a friends Oculus to try out for a week, nice! But I wont be buying one myself for a fair while yet, they are way overpriced; I'll wait until they get a little more refined and a bit cheaper too

 

[NW3]

I have an acer 3d monitor and occasionally use nVidia's 3D vision glasses, its a nice effect, the station has depth and looking out the windows really makes you feel your in a spaceship. ...

But, I can't seem to get the ED menus working right, i.e. some text is broken "in two" and its horrible to use when playing, so always end up turning it off during the session.

NVidia's 3D vision is semi-busted in ED. You can fix the broken text, by switching to NVidia's "compatibility" mode using Ctrl+F11. While that fixes the cockpit, it breaks the galaxy and nebula clouds depths (they appear to be inside the cockpit). I've found that using the ED in-game 3D works best, even with the screwed up colors.

For now, I'm only using in-game anaglyph 3D when driving the SRV on planets/moons. The 3D effect looks very good and I've found that it eliminates the nausea I often get while driving the SRV. Hopefully, FD will fix the anaglyph colors.

As far as VR is concerned, I'm going to wait a few years, until the tech improves, especially the resolution, which IMO isn't high enough yet. I'd also like the price to come down as well.

 

[amadeus1171]

Again, I feel obligated to paste this link. These guys have a shader mod to help fix some of the broken 3D aspect in nVidia's 3D. Trust me, it's worth it. It looks a whole lot better than Elite's anaglyph mode, and it's the card doing the work.