<!--quoteo(post=1768179:date=Apr 21 2010, 02:46 PM:name=Tgaud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tgaud @ Apr 21 2010, 02:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768179"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its a 1 days dev to implement that. (just an option in menu to disable the crosshair, not a bigdeal), so stop excuses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they spend 1 day working on a feature 98% of the initial players can't use, I will be pissed. Every day counts, I'm getting the shakes just looking at all this content and not being able to play!
I'm totally for 3D to be implemented <b>after</b> release, but for now let them actually get the game going and playable.
There ARE two different image calculated. In fact the driver get the Z position of the object and then calculate two different image, with two different view and ligthing. And yes, the framerate is divided by two (one calcul all image for left eye, and the other for the right one), thats why you need a good graphic card.
You're right about the size changing with the distance. That's one of the techniue use to define how far is an object;
but there is severals thing to have the perfect distance vision : accomodation parallax geometrical perspective (the size) convergency binocular disparity.
Actually the game use only the "geometrical perspective" thing. and in some game with blur effect you have the "accomodation", but it's more effective in movie.
3D technology add the binocular disparity and convergency aspect, ones of the more important.
and for the parralax thing, you need TrackIR technology.
Moreover in a game with dynamic players the size change with the distance, but also with the perspective you have of the ennemy. A lerk will seem bigger when you see his bottom (you can see all the aera of his wings) than when you see him from behind;
but even with static objects, the difference to when you add binocular disparity or not, is big.
No, not the framerate is divided by two, it would cost twice as much to render, <i>in addition</i> to needing to render twice as fast.
If you render two separate images you need to do all the rendering twice, if it rendered two separate images then no remotely new game would be able to be played like that, because there is no way in hell you could run a new game at four times the normal FPS requirements.
No remotely sane developer would actually render the whole thing twice, the difference in lighting between two perspectives less than five centimetres apart is so ludicrously small that you would hardly notice it, so running the entire pass twice is completely wasteful.
There is a difference between stereoscopy and not, but it is purely a gimmick, it confers no tangible advantage and does not allow any new gameplay to be introduced, nor cane it make up for a bad game otherwise, it is the very definition of a gimmick.
I dont understand you. We seem agree that the performances are divided by two. and that your fps are divided by two (a little less in fact) then Why are you talking of "four times" ?
Calculate two separate image = dividing fps by two. that's pretty simple.. How do you think it's working otherway ?
And a gimmick ? did u ever tryed it before talking ? read the tests on the internet, once you tryed it you cant play without anymore. Car games, MMORPG, FPS all are MUCH better to play with. (interest in RTS game like starcraft 2 are limited, but that's only for real RTS games.)
and for me having twice as fun in playing is NOT a gimmick
edit <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No remotely sane developer would actually render the whole thing twice, the difference in lighting between two perspectives less than five centimetres apart is so ludicrously small that you would hardly notice it, so running the entire pass twice is completely wasteful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
developpers ? ahah developpers have nothing to do. (except removing 2d effect objects like crosshair) Everything is done by DirectX natively.
it's not a matter of light, it's a matter of what each eyes can see.
Lets say you're facing a box. without 3d you'll only see a square, but with 3d, one of your eyes will actually be able to see a part of the side of the box (this data cant be extracted and created from the original image where all the data you have is a square). the rendering is TOTALLY different, it's a different point of view (one for each eye). so it's like a different camera, it needs its own rendering.
When you render something in a game, you fire a lot of rays from the camera. You would usually fire one ray per pixel but things like antialiasing push that up a bit I think, and some rendering techniques may require mutliple rendering passes, where it may fire one ray for each pass, so you might fire a ray to get the basic colour of the texture, and then another to get the lighting, and then combine them before you draw it.
What you would not do if you had a lick of sense is do that twice to get stereoscopy.
Instead, what you should do is get the Z information from one set of rays, and then use that information to skew the image slightly, the closer it is, the more you skew it, it isn't true to life but it's close enough so that if you didn't know how games work you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The difference in rendering is between rendering twice as much stuff, and simply doing another postprocess effect (or something like it) on a single image, which is a huge difference.
I can do stereoscopy without glasses by just displaying two images on the monitor and unfocussing my eyes slightly, it looks different and it's a nice gimmick, but that's all it is, a gimmick. Anaglyphic 3d is crap because I just see both colours at once, maybe because I'm colourblind or something, full colour 3d is an amusing distraction, but entirely secondary to almost every other graphical enhancement I can think of and infinitely secondary to actual gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1768283:date=Apr 22 2010, 02:30 PM:name=Tgaud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tgaud @ Apr 22 2010, 02:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lets say you're facing a box. without 3d you'll only see a square, but with 3d, one of your eyes will actually be able to see a part of the side of the box (this data cant be extracted and created from the original image where all the data you have is a square). the rendering is TOTALLY different, it's a different point of view (one for each eye). so it's like a different camera, it needs its own rendering.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you are right on the edge of the face, otherwise it just looks like a square. Fo example your monitor looks like a flat plane, you can't see the sides, because the monitor (like most things in the world) is considerably wider than the distance between your eyes. What you describe will only occur in a very small number of situations.
Just because you use two cameras when you look with your eyes does not mean you use two cameras when you render for games, if you ever want to know how to do something in a game, a good rule of thumb is 'not at all like you do it in real life'.
Who do you suppose makes directx other than a development team? Developer does not simply mean 'the people who make NS2'
Is 3D in an FPS easy to use? For some reason I'm a bit skeptic about how easy it would be to track a target as compared to 2D (though that's probably unfounded I'm sure).
<!--quoteo(post=1768286:date=Apr 22 2010, 02:41 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Apr 22 2010, 02:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768286"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is 3D in an FPS easy to use? For some reason I'm a bit skeptic about how easy it would be to track a target as compared to 2D (though that's probably unfounded I'm sure).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It just looks the same as 2d except it kind of pops out of the screen a bit.
It's exactly the difference you get with a 3d movie, if you ever watched a film with the red and green glasses, it's exactly that except it isn't all in red and green.
The stereoscopy works always the same way : to redraw the same scene under two different point of view. It's what give the best rendering.
the Driver DDD give a secondary "Virtual3D" technology that works in a different maneer : It calculate only an image and use the Z-buffer to know the depth of each pixel, then he translate the objects to have the two differents view. It's very economic in ressources, but it provoques a lot of artefacts on the border of objects. (the background behind objects isn't calculated by this method). Impossible to get a strong 3D effect with this technology (too much artefacts). This crappy technology could work in a more interesting waybut it's all the engine of the game which need to be rebuild, to be able to redraw the missing element of the border of objects.
Anyway, that's not a Real 3D (like the name say it's "virtual") and happily that's not how works the actual 3D in video games. It would be crappy. In actual video game 3D rendering, like 3D vision technology, the rendering is great, and two image are calculated. that's what we're talking about ;)
And it's not popping out a lot. the 3D is less intrusive in "depth" than in "popout", so you'll have more deep images.
And btw, raytracing is never used in video games : the calcul is too expansive in ressource, you wouldn't even get 5fps....
That sort of ray tracing is the entire basis of rendering and lighting, not to mention shooting because most guns use traced rays to determine when they hit.
I assume what you're thinking of is global illumination which is where the rays bounce around a lot.
There isn't any other way to render 3d other than by tracing a ray for each pixel from the camera to the world, in order to see what colour that pixel needs to be, and any light that uses shadow maps uses the same system more or less, there is such a thing as stencil shadows which I think is more like vector graphics, but most games use shadow mapping which basically gives each light a texture which is ray traced from the emission point and projected onto the world.
You start drawning object one by one, the one over the others (from the back to the front with some filter, like in NS so all the objects aren't rendered) and you apply texture like pasting an image over the object with some transformation to it.
Raytracing is different : you send a ray by pixel and u see what it intercept. Like it it's REALLY ressource consuming. But more over when you intercept a visible pixel, you have to calculate for this pixel what light this pixel can see (and another ray tracing from this pixel to see which light spot it interecept, or not).
(and if you dont have enought, you have to make another raytracing for this pixel to know what it reflects, and what it show through him (transparency) but this aspect isn't done in games )
Even without light things raytracing is VERY ressource consuming, you have no idea. 1280*1024 resolution is a total of = 1 310 720 ray to launch (without light, just a ray to know if you can see this object or not) if you want 60fps you have to calculate this X 60 minimum. so 78 643 200 ray each second. and only for the first part of the process. it's totally irrealistic.
I just been testing out 3D today with games, Oh my god does it look ace :) However !.. <u><b>Anachrome "compatible" color anaglyph</b></u> ###### up your eyes, myself and mates confirmed that their vision after using and removing the RED/BLUE glasses (color anaglyphs) goes semi-greyscale for an hour after 10 minuets use.... Also if you make your self go cross-eyed after removing the glasses so you see something in double vision, White/greyscale remains white/greyscale but the double visions turn blue and red with the left one blue and the right one red, its well dodgy.
The Amber and Blue version aint that bad but that color is unsupported in games.
My cousin headed off to the Gadget show and tried out protoype shutter glasses, they gave him a huge headache after a few minuets use. I could have told him that just from the concept of them..
The safest least discomforting method we found is with the polorized method. (What you see if you watch Avatar). Only some people get headaches and NO temporary partial color blindness!
<!--quoteo(post=1768307:date=Apr 22 2010, 08:49 AM:name=pulsar85)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pulsar85 @ Apr 22 2010, 08:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768307"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think 3d like the avatar movie would be cool 8)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure if all of you know about this, but apparently everyone cant see 3d with the current technology. A quick google returned in this url, which seem to explain the phenomenon quite well. <a href="http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html" target="_blank">linky</a>
It must suck for those people when they cant see 3d and yet hear everyone around them become speachless, and hear praise about 3d being the future of movies and games :P.
EDIT: I tried that "framing game", and apparently I can see 3d, but not as good as everyone else (I see 2 thumbs, but one is faint as a ghost image). I know exactly why tho, I have this eye problem where my brain completely ignored my left eye when I was young, due to it having a a much bigger visual error then my right eye, we discovered this when I was pretty young, so we suceeded to activate the eye pretty well again, and with glasses I see very well (altouhg my left eyes glass is about double the thickness of my right eyes glass), infact with glasses I see better then the average person without. But I still seem to priortize my right eye.
Probably also the reason that unless I close my right eye, I cant/have big troubles with seeing the left side of my nose, while its easy for me to see the right side of my nose.
Sounds cool. I can't say I woulden't like 3D in video game, I just think it has to wait. Technology still seems primative, and although it is a cool feature, it won't actually change much. It seems to me like the devolopers don't need to do anything at all, so....to reply to the OP. Yes, 3D is available. Quit yapping about it :]
developper have just to give option to removes 2d effects (crosshaire & co)
and about headhaches, it's only if you play with aditional light in the room or if your screen isnt in 120hz (so its only a 50hz per eyes... its quite low)
3D ist absolutly not needed at all ... not even for movies, just look at what Avatar has done, most obvious story ever and all you get in return is some fancy effects, I'm not satisfied with that.
<!--quoteo(post=1770038:date=May 7 2010, 04:29 PM:name=Tgaud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tgaud @ May 7 2010, 04:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770038"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->clash of titans wasnt really 3D you know.... it's not an example.
Go and see the anime "dragons" to have a "little" idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesn't stop it from being terrible.
<!--quoteo(post=1770044:date=May 7 2010, 08:53 AM:name=schkorpio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (schkorpio @ May 7 2010, 08:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770044"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i gotta agree, seeing skulks and fades leaping at you and lerks buzzing past, or even acid rocket going past would look awesome.
problem is, i have an ATi video card :P
the other problem is that i like my 120hz monitor for running things in 120hz cause its smooth as :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have the 3D nVision kit and the Samsung 120Hz monitor and all games I have tried look awesome. FPS games just jump out at you. I really cant wait to try NS2 with it ;)
You guys need to get with the times. I've got a Acer H5360 and most DX games now can play in 3d. NS is no exception. Hell I've been playing Unreal 2 today in 3d. If it's DX game it's most likely going to work with Nividia 3d vision. Problem with 3d is that not many people believe that is actually works. Well it works. It works perfectly. PS it doesn't work with OpenGL games though. I would have liked to played Doom 3 in 3d.
<!--quoteo(post=1770417:date=May 9 2010, 06:11 AM:name=alex1g)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alex1g @ May 9 2010, 06:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770417"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->PS it doesn't work with OpenGL games though. I would have liked to played Doom 3 in 3d.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would have loved to play this in 3D! I might actually play around with the settings later! But first I do need to try out NS2 in 3D :D
NS 2 is stunning in 3d btw. I really love the lighting effects in the game. I parked myself next to a fan where sunlight was coming through and played some Pink Floyd to blow my mind away. 3d is here people get on the band wagon.
The Zalman 3D solution seems to work pretty nicely too (Yay for polarising, boo for shutters ;))! The handrails are actually very impressive and really stood out to me.
I was worrying that the iz3D driver was causing the performance hit but it seems it's the release itself - a huge relief. Now all that has to be fixed is the non-3D aspects of the game, like the crosshair.
Heres a screenshot for those who can view stereoscopic images (It's renamed from jps to jpg so imgur would hold it, rename it back once saved). <a href="http://i.imgur.com/ugz3D.jpg" target="_blank">Linky</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1770459:date=May 9 2010, 06:30 AM:name=alex1g)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alex1g @ May 9 2010, 06:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3d is here people get on the band wagon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Meh, I've seen 3-D in movies and games, it's definitely not "here" yet. Much like a handful of Fiber-optic-connected computers in the basement of DARPA didn't yet constitute the "Internet". It might be on it's way, but this isn't "it", 3-D today is more like an over-glorified bump-mapping of yester-decade.
Comments
If they spend 1 day working on a feature 98% of the initial players can't use, I will be pissed. Every day counts, I'm getting the shakes just looking at all this content and not being able to play!
I'm totally for 3D to be implemented <b>after</b> release, but for now let them actually get the game going and playable.
There ARE two different image calculated.
In fact the driver get the Z position of the object and then calculate two different image, with two different view and ligthing.
And yes, the framerate is divided by two (one calcul all image for left eye, and the other for the right one), thats why you need a good graphic card.
You're right about the size changing with the distance. That's one of the techniue use to define how far is an object;
but there is severals thing to have the perfect distance vision :
accomodation
parallax
geometrical perspective (the size)
convergency
binocular disparity.
Actually the game use only the "geometrical perspective" thing. and in some game with blur effect you have the "accomodation", but it's more effective in movie.
3D technology add the binocular disparity and convergency aspect, ones of the more important.
and for the parralax thing, you need TrackIR technology.
Moreover in a game with dynamic players the size change with the distance, but also with the perspective you have of the ennemy.
A lerk will seem bigger when you see his bottom (you can see all the aera of his wings) than when you see him from behind;
but even with static objects, the difference to when you add binocular disparity or not, is big.
If you render two separate images you need to do all the rendering twice, if it rendered two separate images then no remotely new game would be able to be played like that, because there is no way in hell you could run a new game at four times the normal FPS requirements.
No remotely sane developer would actually render the whole thing twice, the difference in lighting between two perspectives less than five centimetres apart is so ludicrously small that you would hardly notice it, so running the entire pass twice is completely wasteful.
There is a difference between stereoscopy and not, but it is purely a gimmick, it confers no tangible advantage and does not allow any new gameplay to be introduced, nor cane it make up for a bad game otherwise, it is the very definition of a gimmick.
We seem agree that the performances are divided by two. and that your fps are divided by two (a little less in fact)
then Why are you talking of "four times" ?
Calculate two separate image = dividing fps by two. that's pretty simple..
How do you think it's working otherway ?
And a gimmick ? did u ever tryed it before talking ?
read the tests on the internet, once you tryed it you cant play without anymore.
Car games, MMORPG, FPS all are MUCH better to play with.
(interest in RTS game like starcraft 2 are limited, but that's only for real RTS games.)
and for me having twice as fun in playing is NOT a gimmick
edit <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No remotely sane developer would actually render the whole thing twice, the difference in lighting between two perspectives less than five centimetres apart is so ludicrously small that you would hardly notice it, so running the entire pass twice is completely wasteful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
developpers ? ahah developpers have nothing to do. (except removing 2d effect objects like crosshair)
Everything is done by DirectX natively.
it's not a matter of light, it's a matter of what each eyes can see.
Lets say you're facing a box.
without 3d you'll only see a square, but with 3d, one of your eyes will actually be able to see a part of the side of the box (this data cant be extracted and created from the original image where all the data you have is a square).
the rendering is TOTALLY different, it's a different point of view (one for each eye). so it's like a different camera, it needs its own rendering.
What you would not do if you had a lick of sense is do that twice to get stereoscopy.
Instead, what you should do is get the Z information from one set of rays, and then use that information to skew the image slightly, the closer it is, the more you skew it, it isn't true to life but it's close enough so that if you didn't know how games work you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The difference in rendering is between rendering twice as much stuff, and simply doing another postprocess effect (or something like it) on a single image, which is a huge difference.
I can do stereoscopy without glasses by just displaying two images on the monitor and unfocussing my eyes slightly, it looks different and it's a nice gimmick, but that's all it is, a gimmick. Anaglyphic 3d is crap because I just see both colours at once, maybe because I'm colourblind or something, full colour 3d is an amusing distraction, but entirely secondary to almost every other graphical enhancement I can think of and infinitely secondary to actual gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1768283:date=Apr 22 2010, 02:30 PM:name=Tgaud)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tgaud @ Apr 22 2010, 02:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768283"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lets say you're facing a box.
without 3d you'll only see a square, but with 3d, one of your eyes will actually be able to see a part of the side of the box (this data cant be extracted and created from the original image where all the data you have is a square).
the rendering is TOTALLY different, it's a different point of view (one for each eye). so it's like a different camera, it needs its own rendering.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you are right on the edge of the face, otherwise it just looks like a square. Fo example your monitor looks like a flat plane, you can't see the sides, because the monitor (like most things in the world) is considerably wider than the distance between your eyes. What you describe will only occur in a very small number of situations.
Just because you use two cameras when you look with your eyes does not mean you use two cameras when you render for games, if you ever want to know how to do something in a game, a good rule of thumb is 'not at all like you do it in real life'.
Who do you suppose makes directx other than a development team? Developer does not simply mean 'the people who make NS2'
It just looks the same as 2d except it kind of pops out of the screen a bit.
It's exactly the difference you get with a 3d movie, if you ever watched a film with the red and green glasses, it's exactly that except it isn't all in red and green.
the Driver DDD give a secondary "Virtual3D" technology that works in a different maneer :
It calculate only an image and use the Z-buffer to know the depth of each pixel, then he translate the objects to have the two differents view.
It's very economic in ressources, but it provoques a lot of artefacts on the border of objects. (the background behind objects isn't calculated by this method). Impossible to get a strong 3D effect with this technology (too much artefacts).
This crappy technology could work in a more interesting waybut it's all the engine of the game which need to be rebuild, to be able to redraw the missing element of the border of objects.
Anyway, that's not a Real 3D (like the name say it's "virtual") and happily that's not how works the actual 3D in video games. It would be crappy.
In actual video game 3D rendering, like 3D vision technology, the rendering is great, and two image are calculated.
that's what we're talking about ;)
And it's not popping out a lot. the 3D is less intrusive in "depth" than in "popout", so you'll have more deep images.
And btw, raytracing is never used in video games : the calcul is too expansive in ressource, you wouldn't even get 5fps....
I assume what you're thinking of is global illumination which is where the rays bounce around a lot.
There isn't any other way to render 3d other than by tracing a ray for each pixel from the camera to the world, in order to see what colour that pixel needs to be, and any light that uses shadow maps uses the same system more or less, there is such a thing as stencil shadows which I think is more like vector graphics, but most games use shadow mapping which basically gives each light a texture which is ray traced from the emission point and projected onto the world.
its the "paint method"
You start drawning object one by one, the one over the others (from the back to the front with some filter, like in NS so all the objects aren't rendered) and you apply texture like pasting an image over the object with some transformation to it.
Raytracing is different : you send a ray by pixel and u see what it intercept. Like it it's REALLY ressource consuming.
But more over when you intercept a visible pixel, you have to calculate for this pixel what light this pixel can see (and another ray tracing from this pixel to see which light spot it interecept, or not).
(and if you dont have enought, you have to make another raytracing for this pixel to know what it reflects, and what it show through him (transparency) but this aspect isn't done in games )
Even without light things raytracing is VERY ressource consuming, you have no idea.
1280*1024 resolution is a total of = 1 310 720 ray to launch (without light, just a ray to know if you can see this object or not)
if you want 60fps you have to calculate this X 60 minimum.
so 78 643 200 ray each second. and only for the first part of the process.
it's totally irrealistic.
However !.. <u><b>Anachrome "compatible" color anaglyph</b></u> ###### up your eyes, myself and mates confirmed that their vision after using and removing the RED/BLUE glasses (color anaglyphs) goes semi-greyscale for an hour after 10 minuets use....
Also if you make your self go cross-eyed after removing the glasses so you see something in double vision, White/greyscale remains white/greyscale but the double visions turn blue and red with the left one blue and the right one red, its well dodgy.
The Amber and Blue version aint that bad but that color is unsupported in games.
My cousin headed off to the Gadget show and tried out protoype shutter glasses, they gave him a huge headache after a few minuets use.
I could have told him that just from the concept of them..
The safest least discomforting method we found is with the polorized method. (What you see if you watch Avatar).
Only some people get headaches and NO temporary partial color blindness!
A quick google returned in this url, which seem to explain the phenomenon quite well.
<a href="http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html" target="_blank">linky</a>
It must suck for those people when they cant see 3d and yet hear everyone around them become speachless, and hear praise about 3d being the future of movies and games :P.
EDIT:
I tried that "framing game", and apparently I can see 3d, but not as good as everyone else (I see 2 thumbs, but one is faint as a ghost image). I know exactly why tho, I have this eye problem where my brain completely ignored my left eye when I was young, due to it having a a much bigger visual error then my right eye, we discovered this when I was pretty young, so we suceeded to activate the eye pretty well again, and with glasses I see very well (altouhg my left eyes glass is about double the thickness of my right eyes glass), infact with glasses I see better then the average person without. But I still seem to priortize my right eye.
Probably also the reason that unless I close my right eye, I cant/have big troubles with seeing the left side of my nose, while its easy for me to see the right side of my nose.
I have Nvidia 3d vision set and the engine test works with it (sorta) lots of little bugs/artifacts but the 3d effect is there and it works.
and about headhaches, it's only if you play with aditional light in the room or if your screen isnt in 120hz (so its only a 50hz per eyes... its quite low)
it's not an example.
Go and see the anime "dragons" to have a "little" idea.
problem is, i have an ATi video card :P
the other problem is that i like my 120hz monitor for running things in 120hz cause its smooth as :)
it's not an example.
Go and see the anime "dragons" to have a "little" idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesn't stop it from being terrible.
problem is, i have an ATi video card :P
the other problem is that i like my 120hz monitor for running things in 120hz cause its smooth as :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can have 3D with ATI cards too..
loo for IZ3D
PS it doesn't work with OpenGL games though. I would have liked to played Doom 3 in 3d.
I would have loved to play this in 3D! I might actually play around with the settings later! But first I do need to try out NS2 in 3D :D
The handrails are actually very impressive and really stood out to me.
I was worrying that the iz3D driver was causing the performance hit but it seems it's the release itself - a huge relief.
Now all that has to be fixed is the non-3D aspects of the game, like the crosshair.
Heres a screenshot for those who can view stereoscopic images (It's renamed from jps to jpg so imgur would hold it, rename it back once saved).
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/ugz3D.jpg" target="_blank">Linky</a>
Meh, I've seen 3-D in movies and games, it's definitely not "here" yet. Much like a handful of Fiber-optic-connected computers in the basement of DARPA didn't yet constitute the "Internet". It might be on it's way, but this isn't "it", 3-D today is more like an over-glorified bump-mapping of yester-decade.
(and panasonic plamsa will be even greater with no ghosting at all)