Nvidia 3D Vision Surround: Is This The Future Of Gaming?

[BabySpiceEmma]

What about online games? Don't play a single one of those tested here.

What about:

World of Warcraft
City of Heroes
Champions Online
D&D Online


And I hope the upcoming DC Universe Online will build properly*.





* I understand some games put the "floaties" above monster heads in the same plane as the HUD, just shrunken to fake looking like it's "out there". Needless to say, this looks terrible in 3D.

 

[Hockeyguyinoc]

From what I understand from multiple other articles 3D all forms is bad for children under 7 as their muscles in their eyes are still forming. Just a good warning to keep in mind when you have children at home.

 

[Ondoval]

Sorry but I fail trying to understand how 3D gaming could enhance my performance in online gaming, specially shooters; I find it more a distraction, specially in a environment in which some players trend to disable settings in order to make their foes easier to detecto r to increase the framerrate, two things in which 3D gaming is clearly a step back ¡.
I also fail to understand how in hell playing with monitors that uses TN panels in order to achieve 120 Hz could compete with S-IPS, H-IPS, P/MVA displays which powers the best screens around: whith current 3D displays you lose color gamut (from 12, 10 or 8 bits per chanel to only 6 in TN panels), contrast, angle of sight, and all of this even taking in consideration the glasses darkening the games.
And for last, but not least, once I earn the money my choice always will be to increase the resolution and the the AA filters. With 2.500+ $ anyone probably could crank with supersampling antialiasing almost any game in the market in a 27” or 30” display. Less money, less electric power required, better colors, contrast, filters and more framerrate.
Please anyone: try to argue against my logic.

 

[hixbot]

Who said anything about improving your performance? 3D is about offering a new experience, not having an edge over your opponents.

Even for 2d gaming, IPS and P/MVA displays are, for the most part, too slow. Unfortunately, there are no decent displays that offer the total combination of accurate colours, good black levels, great viewing angles, and response time. Oh wait, there are CRT displays which have all of the above, but they're obsolete

 

[CPfreak]

you guys checked up on the 3ds?
I don't really know very much what i'm talking about but it seems as if monitor manufacturers could make that kind of principle work on bigger screens too, couldn't they?

 

[hixbot]

A camera follows your eyes direction, to make sure it orients the filters just right so that each eye gets a seperate image. That kind of tech would be impossible at a decent distance from a TV since the camera would be too far to follow your eyes. and wouldn't work with too many sets of eyes.
truthfully any glassless tech for large displays will have HUGE disadvantages and annoyances. Shutter/polarized glasses aren't that bad. It's funny those that think it's hard to imagine people putting up with wearing glasses for 3d, when billions wear glasses every day to fix their vision, block sunlight, and personal protection. Is it too much to ask to wear them for 3d entertainment?

 

[Ondoval]

@hixbot: 4 years ago I spend 620 € in a 20" 1680 x 1050 Viewsonic VX2025wm which has a MVA panel and I find that works excellent in games, providing broand angles of sight and deep color and contrast. Current S-IPS aSd H-IPS from labels as Dell are even faster; clearly if you want today a quality display with good color gamut and fast enough to play without compromises there's some nice, well-rounded, SIPS displays in the market.

None of them supports stereoscopic 3D, so, when I'll change my display in a year or two (looking for the Dell 2711 and Apple Cinema Display 27", both with 2560 x 1440 screens) my choice will be the quality of the image in those ones instead of the 3D gimmicks with poor gamut, mediocre contrast and narrow sights from the 3D labels. Look at the 8 models which supports 3D gaming and search for the results and performances against SIPS displays. They are WORSE, and looks no sense to me to invest money in going towards worse quality.

 

[williehmmm]

I have x2 GTX470 in sli mode for my single screen 3D. I'd tried the 5970 in eyefinity mode and was very impressed but when I'd read previews of the fermi cards supporting 3D stereo and surround screen gaming, that seemed like where I wanted to spend £900/$1,350.

Just downloaded the new driver last night to try out 2D surround and my first obstacle was that you cannot mix DVI & VGA outputs. I have a bunch of old CRT monitors that will allow me to go all VGA when I try them out later.

-

As for those who think 3D will be a passing fad, they said that about sound in movies in the 1920s, then colour in the 1930s, then TV in the 50s, then space invaders in the 70s, then VHS & CDs in the 80s, widescreen TVs, 5.1/7.1 surround sound, flat screen TVs, HDTVs etc... All those fads are now the norm. Yes, there is a lot of hype and yes the costs are fairly high if you want 3D stereo and surround screens, but 1 or the other isn't so expensive and both together is the ultimate...

If you can imagine that I hadn't fully matured and was still a big kid (just try to imagine that), my ultimate games room would consist of a back wall with 2 walls at 45 degrees either side. There would be x3 1080p 120hz projectors filling each of those walls with an immersive 3D image, bezel free of course. Then perhaps a racing seat, G25/G27 and pedals, or maybe just a desk for FPS.

A fully immersive 3D image spanning 180 degrees of your vision, filling your peripheral vision. How much would that cost? Whatever it is, it'd be cheap at twice the price. Maybe the seat would have some hydraulic rams to give that full simulator effect for the ultimate force feedback experience, you strapped into the racing seat with a 6 point harness, rising, falling, tilting left, right, forward and back as you hurtle around Silverstone or the Indy 500. Your point of view coordinated exactly with where the chair tilts you so as you accelerate hard you are tilted back and the display on screen rises to keep you centred on the road as the chair has tilted back some 20 degrees. Braking hard has the opposite effect, you are flung forward as you screech to a halt, perhaps with some elaborate scent release system to give you a whiff of burning rubber or the high octane fuel exhausting from the car in front, (how much could it cost for a bottle of odour de bridgestone, vented like an inkjet at the appropriate time as smoke bellows around you in amzing 3D), perhaps 5.1 fans to blast air at you, gentle at first as you build up speed, then full blast as you hit 200mph.

Have I gone too far? I guess you get the picture, i want immersion, I want all 5 senses to be stimulated and tricked into think I'm really there and it starts with things that are supposed to be far away looking like they are far away, bring on 3D!

Those who think it's a fad should have a red hot poker shoved into their left eye! They really don't need it, it's wasted on them!

p.s. could any members of the 3D liberation army please ignore my last comment about blinding the luddites in 1 eye. This was extreme hyperbole for shock value and in no way should be taken as a call to arms to cause hurt or disability to those who are clearly already shortsighted.

 

[babachoo]

-

As for those who think 3D will be a passing fad, they said that about sound in movies in the 1920s, then colour in the 1930s, then TV in the 50s, then space invaders in the 70s, then VHS & CDs in the 80s, widescreen TVs, 5.1/7.1 surround sound, flat screen TVs, HDTVs etc...

NO, they didn't. They said "Holy crap, this is awesome and things will never be the same. I'm surprised you didn't expand this propaganda post further to say that "they" also said that automobiles, the industrial revolution, the cure for smallpox, Christianity, and using weapons instead of bare hands to hunt for food...would also just be passing fads. Take your poorly thought out shilling elsewhere.

 

[Userremoved]

And in six mounts all this will be worthless...

 

[williehmmm]

[citation][nom]babachoo[/nom]NO, they didn't. They said "Holy crap, this is awesome and things will never be the same. I'm surprised you didn't expand this propaganda post further to say that "they" also said that automobiles, the industrial revolution, the cure for smallpox, Christianity, and using weapons instead of bare hands to hunt for food...would also just be passing fads. Take your poorly thought out shilling elsewhere.[/citation]

Lol. Sound added to movies, they were called the 'talkies' and just the movies, why, because there were many who thought it wouldn't take off and persisted with silent movies.

Colour - again, the auters believed that film was art and that colour was too expensive and unneccesary, it lacked the tonal quality that only black and white could deliver, they were wrong.

TV - it'll be the death of cinema.

Space invaders/computers to play games - a fad, it'll never take off.

VHS - it'll be the death of cinema.

CD's - digital music, with the loss of the full sound range that only analogue on vinyl can give, it'll never take off.

Widescreen - but all TV is recorded for 4:3 aspect ratio, it'll never take off.

5.1 Surround sound - but we only have 2 ears, why would we need 6 speakers.

Flat screen - but we've only just bought widescreen CRTs, too expensive and unnecessary.

1080p HD - what do you mean my 1st generation plasma can only display 1024 - 768, Full HD/1080p that level of detail is too much, it's too expensive, it'll never take off.

3D - exact same story, too expensive, who needs it, I've just bought a 1080p TV, etc...

Economies of scale dictate that a time will come soon when most TVs are 120Hz capable, and once we have bluray 3D and more and more game developers realise they are more likley to sell more games if they sign up to the 3D vision compatible rulebook, the content will be available and the deal will be done.

Those who disagree are sitting at home typing on a 286sx 16Mhz, with windows 3.0 and 2MB of RAM and a 56k dial up connection, watching TV on a 14" black white set.

3D is overhyped, over priced and lacking in content, although several hundred games is a good start. But it will become the norm and it will be improved upon. I'm ready to be an early adopter for Nvidia smell'o'vision, when that gets launched. Sign me up!

 

[C_S]

babachoo, what you're describing is "almost" right, and I congratulate you for it--we two do think very much alike, I can see.

What would truly be superior to the setup you described (with the angled walls) would be to sit instead inside a "one-man-personal-planetarium" ( a full 360 surround projection dome)...in which center of the projected image followed the center of your eye focus and head movement as you gazed around your environment. To say it another way: The projected image should follow your gaze around the inside of the dome using real-time headtracking....

Ultimately, what 3D, and particularly 3D gaming and simulation hopes to emulate is to allow you to look around you and see things where they would be in relation to you in real time, and if the image could be made to follow your gaze as you look around you, you would be very close to realizing that.

I'll point out too (and this perhaps where Nvidia might ultimately have it's focus on "3D surround" a bit wrong) that, while a normally-sighted, two-eyed human does indeed see a Field-of-View (FOV) of approximately 180 degrees around him, he does NOT--CANNOT--see all 180 degrees of his surrounding view IN STEREO (3D). Indeed, stereo vision of any object requires that both eyes be able to see it together, and for approximately half of the 180 degree FOV, this is simply impossible (for humans).

The view of our right eye (to the left) is ultimately limited by the "frame/bezel" of our nose sticking out of the middle of our face (and vice versa). Close you left eye and look far right and realize you can clearly see your own nose...and if you move your left hand around out to the left (move it back toward you ear and then slowly ahead), you'll clearly see, at some point, your hand suddenly appear from behind the "frame/bezel" of your nose--that defines the left edge of the viewable STEREO space, which turns out to be a narrower "cone" approximately 45 degrees off to each side of center, and defined at the top by the edge of the browline...and at the bottom by either your cheek...or perhaps by your protruding stomach (whichever of the two frames the view).

The point being this: What we REALLY want is a 3D stereo projection in the center...and a 2D image on either side...provided we can arrange to have the entire combined image to follow the center of our gaze around the inside of our dome as we pan-and-tilt our head to scan around us....

Oddly enough, that MAY not be as hard to do as it might seem (even on the cheap)--one of the projectors on the Nvidia compatibility list sports a unique feature that might allow us to try this idea out even now (the short-throw ViewSonic PJD 6381)....


C_S

 

[C_S]

Followup to previous post: I'm a big believer in 3D, but more specifically on the potential in 3D PROJECTION...and I've been a user of some forms of this (off-and-on) for more than 3 years now, with a primary focus on racing sims*.

[* my sim-poison of choice: "rFactor"]

I recently upgraded to a new HD projector, and, unfortunately this means I can't continue further with the 3D experiments (until I can figure out how to synch my (older model) shutterglasses with output from the HDMI connector...

...but I CAN say from personal experience that a 3D projection can be shockingly immersive--and often quite frightening--in both driving and flying sims. Potentially quite fun too in FPS games (I've tried it in CoD2 anyway), but for it to really take off there it will probably require even more GPU power than we have today, and an entirely new emphasis on highly detailed 3D object modeling by game publishers.

One example from personal experience: When you are closely, following the back end of another F1 car (driving in front of a life-size stereo image), the wing of the car in front will loom VERY large indeed. In fact, if you have things set up exactly right, his wing may even appear to be slightly overhead (not just in front of you, but actually overhead to a small degree). When you see it for the first time, it REALLY gets your attention....

At the same time, if you are battling hard...say around the tight confines of Monaco...you are likely to be somewhat disappointed when you realize that the guardrails are actually modeled completely flat (like walls)...and that the shadows they appear to sport in 2D are actually just "painted on shadows".

You can get away with things when you model objects for 2D viewing that will leave you "underwhelmed" when they are finally seen in 3D.

Eventually, the modeling will catch up too, and every new cutting edge GPU helps us here, simply because it can render the necessary "high-poly" modeling that 3D demands and still keep the framerates acceptable....


C_S

 

[Ondoval]

@williehmmm: sorry but 3D failed at lest 2 times over history trying to get success, and looks in the same way now (at least in desktop and living room videogaming).

The jump from stereo audio to 5.1+ multichannel surround enhanced greatly the immersion and your chances to detect foes in online gaming, 3D bears nothing to the table in matter of enhance your perception in the competitive gaming, and as I said, current 3D monitor displays are all cr4py TN LCDs, that can't stand against SIPS in quality LCDs. Cheap Hyundays can't compete against Lambos and Astons.

 

[williehmmm]

Hi CS, it was me who had posted the 3D games room idea.

I had a pair of ELSA 3D Revelator glasses way back, which worked okay on the original half life but compared to the current Nvidia 3D vision, with games which are certified 3D vision ready, there is no comparison. I'm assuming you don't have the Nvidia 3D vision glasses if your glasses are 3 years old.

Shadows render exactly as they should with 3D vision, as long as the game is programmed correctly, but the 3D vision advisory keeps you right about which features need to be turned off because they are in 2D and ruin the 3D effect.
Metro 2033 has lots of particles and dust in the air and the genuine sense of depth that it gives is amazing, it's not just a flat wall far away and object closer, it's a perceptible atmosphere around you, dust, light rays, smoke etc. All correctly rendered in 3D space. You may need to invest in some new glasses to appreciate how far they've come.

-

As for Ondoval and the claim that 3D has failed twice in the past. All I would say is that TV was invented 30 years before there was a mass uptake of consumer TVs, so you could argue that TV failed, until it succeeded.

There has never before been a mass production of TVs/monitors and accompanying glasses and the content to watch with them. We're now at a time where there is content being created in Hollywood. Games developers adhering to a stereo 3D rulebook so that there games can switch beween 2D & 3D with all the effects correctly rendered. Major sporting events are being televised in 3D. The industry is fully behind consumer 3D in a way that it never has been before, so I'd say this is the first proper attempt to deliver 3D to consumers in their own home. It may go the same way as betamax and laserdisc, but it's more likely that it'll be the new 5.1 & 1080p.

 

[palladin9479]

To all the kids complaining about "3D multiplayer" performance and LCD's / 3D, I'm laughing at you.

A screen that can update a 60 times per second has a response of 1000/60 = 16.6ms. At 120hz that equals 60 timers per eye you get the same aggregate response time. That is literally 1/60th of a second, in contrast. A good broadband connection to a server in your same region has a response of 40 to 60 ms, if its in the same city you might 20 ms. The way games work is, someone does something, it gets sent to the server, the server process's the event then sends it to your PC. That is the 40 ~ 60 ping time. The packet goes into your PC's network stack where it must work its way through the stack into you games buffer then your game process's the packet / packets and displays the result on the screen. Your eyes see this on the screen and relay this picture to your brain. Your brain deconstructs the 2D screen into 3D (because your brain thinks in 3D) makes a decision on proper response, relays that response to your hands / fingers which then execute the response. The game interprets the response then constructs the datagram and sends it to the network stack where its packetized and sent on its way to the game server.

That that amazingly long chain of events, a 16.6ms screen response time is one of the least of your worries and will never be responsible for you getting fragged or missing a frag shot. If it is then you better be able to catch arrows out of the air and dodge bullets like Neo because that is the speed we're talking about. The only thing having a refresh higher then 60hz does is alleviate eyestrain if you happen to be in a room with fluorescent lighting and have v-sync turned off. Fluorescent lights just happen to have a 60hz stepping motor which makes them dim / brighten at that frequency.

Now where true-3D can actually improve your performance is in your own mental response time. Once its tuned and your comfortable / used to it you do notice a difference. There is a process where your brain must re-interpret the 2D image as a 3D spatial field. This is done so you know how far to run / jump / fire back / dodge. But your brain already has a specialized area just for this kind of split-second reaction. If your brain is seeing in true-3D then your brains own 3D depth perception / instinctual parts can take over and make the split-second decisions for movement / evasion and return fire without you needing to actually understand what your seeing.

Years ago I used to do 3D gaming on an older NEC 17" monitor that could run 1024x768 at 85hz. This was 42.5 frames per eye, enough to get a very solid 3D effect and not cause too much eye strain. I was with an Nvidia GeForce TI 4200 and some hardwired 3D shutter lenses linked with the 3D card. I opted for the wired ones because I had read that the wireless (IR at the time) had a delayed response time that could screw with the effect. Took me awhile to get used to it because 3D gaming was extremely crude. Once I was comfortable with it I became a monster at Unreal Tournament. Running / jumping, dodging rockets and frag rounds while returning the same. Its a pretty crazy effect, unless you've done this extensively its impossible to explain. Your brain becomes convinced that the rockets / explosions are real, that your not merely observing things happening but actually immersed in it. But LCD's since them haven't been able to properly display 3D images until recently. They'll never be able to keep up with a CRT, but it just needs to be good enough.

 

[C_S]

Same rig I used early on, palladin. A Ti4200 card and "Wicked Eye 3D shutterglasses (the same glasses I've used until very recently with the 10x7 DLP projector).

I bought a 20" Mitsubishi 1080 CRT monitor back then specifically so I could use it with the shutterglasses to see 3D (the CRT sported a very high 100 Hz refresh rate), so I was seeing 3D at 50Hz/eye. Flicker was not an issue for me.

The 3D effect was good...but by no means great. It also didn't take long to realize that the effect was better--more believable and immersive--if I put my face closer to the screen, making the image larger...

...and having done that, it didn't take long to figure out what that was proving to me, either--the larger the 3D objects appeared, the more and more believable it all became, at least to me....

Obviously, the 50Hz/eye I was seeing while using the CRT were far superior to the mere 30Hz/eye I settled for when using the same rig later, coupled with the (VGA resolution) DLP projector...but the DLP projector still gave me, by FAR the better 3D user experience.*

[* at some point in there I also upgraded to a 7800GS video card too, although I do believe I did that only after I decided to stick with the projector solution exclusively (at least for driving and flying)]

And the lesson: What made the projector solution so much better than the CRT (despite the increased flicker from the glasses at only 30Hz/eye) was the fact that I could now rig the projector-and-screen solution to show me, quite literally, an exact "life-size" image...and, in my view, it's THIS which makes almost ALL the difference when using 3D. Lifesize viewing is critically important, particularly where the surrounding world portrays real-world objects...the sort we are all used to seeing in our everyday lives.

I believe "lifesize" will ultimately be what the industry and the end users both agree upon as the best "workable" solution too.

Why? Because those of us (most of us) who are normally sighted (w/ two working eyeballs) and who make use of 3D constantly in our daily lives (without even realizing it) are used to seeing well known objects in a certain way. It's so much ingrained into our brains that we take it completely for granted...until something jarring occurs to upset the apple cart we are leaning against....

It's also part of why, I'm sure, the "blue people" in AVATAR were supposed to be ten feet tall (instead of the same height as normal humans)--when seen in 3D on the "big screen" they would appear to be monstrous, regardless of where it was you were sitting in the theater...and it because you knew that, you weren't overly bent out of shape if things weren't configured just right for where it was you were sitting.

If they'd been human beings instead, the people in front would have felt (even subconsciously) that they were "too big"...and the people in back might well have come away feeling the movie was somehow about a tribe of midgets on a distant planet....

---

FWIW, I still do ALL my racing in front of the lifesize image, even in 2D--it's just that good.


C_S

 

[Guest]

Reynod!!!

You made my friday, great conclusions

 

[hixbot]

ondoval you are wrong by saying all specs for the 3d TN displays are worse than than SIPS displays... I agree that the SIPS displays are much better panels, but the 3D TN panels have much better response time, which is necessary for getting a true 120hz refresh.
truthfully LCD tech is unable to deliver top quality in all categories. TN will give you the performance you need for 3d, but you sacrifice colour accuracy, black levels and viewing angles. IPS and P/MVA give you a great picture but they are currently too slow for decent 120hz.

 

[Ondoval]

@hitbox: exactly, and I'll choose picture quality over speed and 3D gimmicks anytime. 3D displays are not competitive in price vs standard TN panels and are not competitive against SIPS panels in price. They have the bad quality of ones with the expensive price from the others, the worst of both worlds. And just when the 3D panels falls enough to be mainstream in tv markets then we will star to see the first OLED ones with quality and speed.

Sorry, but I'll skip this whole generation; wake me up when 2560 x 1440 0r better 3D screens will be available.

 

[hixbot]

Yes I'm completely skipping the LCD generations. I'm sticking with my CRT until more perfect displays hit the market. My fingers are crossed for OLED.

 

[sometoddy]

The best 3D gaming was invented way before the internet and way before computers and way before electricity, get out and experience some real life! Free 3D and Surround sound, no drivers and 100% compatible with everything you do. Includes surround smell technology as well as optional taste and feel on demand perceptions!(Warning: real life may be hazardous to your health, proceed at own risk, results may vary)

 

[sometoddy]

The best 3D gaming was invented way before the internet and way before computers and way before electricity, get out and experience some real life! Free 3D and Surround sound, no drivers and 100% compatible with everything you do. Includes surround smell technology as well as optional taste and feel on demand perceptions!(Warning: real life may be hazardous to your health, proceed at own risk, results may vary)

 

[BabySpiceEmma]

> [The Personal Planetarium Dome] in which center of the projected image
> followed the center of your eye focus and head movement as you gazed
> around your environment. To say it another way: The projected image
> should follow your gaze around the inside of the dome using real-time
> headtracking....

Ahh, you goof, sir! Head tracking is used for eye projection goggles, and the image on the little TVs over each eye are shifted in response to head turning.

Inside your personal planetarium dome, you just turn your head to look. You wear goggles, of course, for the 3D shutters, but that has nothing to do with looking around.

 

[C_S]

No, I didn't goof. Head tracking can be used for anything, and in this case I would use it to have the projected image follow the yaw, bank and pitch of the head as it looks around the inside of that dome.

The headtracking output would be used to aim the projectors in real-time.


C_S