Search Results for 'XEL'

[Ralf]

When you use ALT-SPACE your view is recentered to the center of the virtual screen regardless whether you sit or stand. I’m not sure how that could fail, but if it does for you, maybe doing your headset’s basic setup again could help. Also keep in mind that most headsets render more pixels below that camera than above, so centering the position to the virtual screen does not necessarily mean that the space above the virtual screen has the same height as the space below the virtual screen, which typically will be slightly larger.

[Ralf]

Maxing our the ImageZoom perfectly addresses your “issue”. Apologies for trying to explain the underlying mechanics, which obviously did nothing but confuse you. Just max out the ImageZoom if you can’t live with 40 pixels or so of your screen not being utilized. All is well when you do that.

[Ralf]

You already mentioned the “fix” yourself in your original post, although I wouldn’t call it that way since nothing is wrong. When you max out the ImageZoom setting you can fill the entire screen, the correct vertical alignment in that case is ensured by some pixels of the original image being cut off at the upper edge.

BTW: The ImageZoom setting at 1.0 means that your vertical FOV is the same as Oculus uses for their headsets. They nailed the compromise between pixel density and FOV quite well, so my personal recommendation would be to leave it that way.

[StakFallT]

Then by the sounds of it, if my understanding is correct. There’s not really any way to “fix” this since the issue occurs due to a mis-match between the two camera matrices (one that is used in the matrix transformation operation of the game, and one in vorpX’s matrix transformation operation)? Which isn’t really a problem, except that because the headset (I guess on a hardware level?) forces the rendering to be the way it is (what you referred to as trying to squeeze out a few more pixels, “fixing” the issue would create distortion? Wait. So does that mean game developers manually factor in that headsets put their game somewhat into a blender and adjust their matrices prior to pushing to to the HMD so that when the HMD display it with its own rendering, it looks correct?

[Ralf]

That is intentional and the correct way to handle it for vorpX. Unlike native apps vorpX’s rendering is done in two steps: in the first step the game gets rendered, in the second step the final image is rendered to the headset by vorpX.

The effect you noticed exists because in contrast to normal monitor games all VR headsets (to varying degrees) have a slightly asymmetrical view frustum, i.e. they render more below the camera than above. Headset vendors do that to gain a few precious pixels where it counts since the human brain tends to concentrate on the ground.

Now when vorpX in its second render step aligns the symmetrically rendered game image to the asymmetrical headset frustum, the effect you noticed arises. Just centering the game image on the headset screen instead causes distortion in FullVR mode when you rotate your head due to vertically misaligned viewpoints between the game image and the second render step. In other words: what you want to match between step 1 and step 2 are the camera centers, not the image/screen centers. Both are not the same since the game’s view frustum (first step) is vertically symmetrical while the headset frustum (second step) isn’t.

[TheBalt]

just for the record, also, for unsupported like 2d games – i use it just as a giant screen for 2d games like salt and sanctuary or more recently the messenger. you can make a profile for it or use big picture mode. Kick the games super sampling up so the pixels still look sharp, even if its an unsupported 2d indie game you can use big picture as a giant customizable screen, other ways of doing that, but desktop viewer is pretty rad

[mr_spongeworthy]

I know I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again now that it sounds like there are a lot more people interested in it: This is a market you should tap. There are so, so many games I would simply prefer to continue to play in traditional stereoscopic mode, and you’ve got like 90 or 95% of the work already done here with vorpX. I know there are even instructions floating about on how to create profiles for using vorpX on traditional stereoscopic displays. Many titles I play just won’t translate well to an HMD (lots of keyboard use, for example), and besides, it just so much more relaxing to kick back and play DAO or something like that on a 3D screen, not an HMD. Plus, even the highest pixel-density HMDs really aren’t all that sharp compared to what you can do on a flat-screen 3D display (where you don’t have to fill your entire field of view). It’s just the kind of win-win situation that would fill the void left by Tri-Def and nVidia. Sure, there is SuperDepth3D, and for what it is that is a pretty amazing little shader, but ReShade itself doesn’t even work properly when it detects network activity, so that’s a big problem right out of the box. Then there are the advantages that come with playing on a flat 3D screen rather than full VR, like better tolerance of low frame rates. I enjoy vorpX in the few titles I currently use it for, and it’s a good solid product from what I can tell, but I can see a lot of upsides to supporting the traditional 3D gaming crowd and I sure hope you reconsider doing so!

[Darkonus]

I have tried everything to bring down the pixel density but its just too much for me. I really had no idea it would be so dense. Will this improve with like the higher resolution headsets like the 5k from Primax. Or is Pixel Density just nothing can be done to get rid of on VR headsets?

[Ralf]

I can’t really give any more useful answer than the one I gave you several times above already, sorry. There is no single X*Y pixels answer to your question since the right answer for you depends on your personal preferences in regard to performance vs. resolution.

Rules of thumb you should keep in mind are: 1. Resolution as high as possible while still keeping the framerate high enough to be comfortable for you. 2. Square/4:3 aspect ratio if you (or vorpX automatically) can set the FOV high enough to fill the entire screen, 16:9 if you need ImageZoom to compensate for FOV. That’s fairly easy and the best advice on could give in this regard.

[Ralf]

A appreciate the offer, no need to send me a donation though. I’d be more than happy if you just would take my advice:

Stop counting pixels, you make things more complicated that way for yourself than they really are. A higher resolution will always look better, even beyond your headset’s screen resolution, but a super high resolution is worth nothing if the game only runs at 20fps.

Rules of thumb you should keep in mind are: 1. Resolution as high as possible while still keeping the framerate high enough to be comfortable for you. 2. Square/4:3 aspect ratio if you (or vorpX automatically) can set the FOV high enough to fill the entire screen, 16:9 if you need ImageZoom to compensate for FOV. That’s fairly easy and the best advice on could give in this regard.

Hope that helps.

[Ralf]

I’m not really sure whether you understood yet that there is no way to get the image looking right FOV wise in this game without ImageZoom unless you find a way to circumvent its recently introduced FOV cap. So that’s what you have to understand first.

Apart from that: your calculation is backwards. With a lower imageZoom value you need less pixels for 1:1 mapping, not more. The correlation between the setting and the resolution is linear: when you lower the setting by 20%, you need 20% less pixels in either direction.

Also for a pixel match calculation you would have to factor in the lens distortion correction that is applied by SteamVR. VR headsets aren’t monitors. Game pixels are never mapped directly to screen pixels, not even in native games, there always is a distortion algorithm applied before the image is displayed to counteract lens distortion.

Which pretty much brings us back to my original reply: unless you find a way to circumvent the game’s recently introduced FOV cap, you need ImageZoom for FullVR mode. Select a 16:9 resolution in this particular case that you consider looking good enough while still providing performance that you consider good enough. That’s the most useful advice I can give you.

[Ralf]

The key is to find the right balance between image quality and performance, which depends on the game as well as your personal preferences. What you consider OK in both departments is up to you. Some favor a crisper image over framerate, for others it’s the other way around. Try something like 2560×1440 and see how that goes performance wise. Considering the image zoom value of 0.65 that should be relatively close to 1:1 pixel mapping on your headset in this particular case.

Aspect ratios similar to your screen aspect ratio only make sense for games that allow to set the FOV high enough to fill the entire screen vertically. That is not the case anymore for the most recent Star Citizen version as far as I’m aware. Since you will need ImageZoom to account for the missing FOV, 16:9 is the right choice in this case.

If that all (understandably) sounds like mad gibberish to you, just trust me.

[steph12]

i’ll upload mine tomorrow ok.

my updated engine.ini final tweaks if you’re interested, copy paste this after everything else.

[SystemSettings]
r.Tonemapper.GrainQuantization=0
r.Tonemapper.Quality=0
r.SceneColorFringe.Max=0
r.SceneColorFringeQuality=0
r.MaxAnisotropy=16
r.ViewDistanceScale=4
foliage.LODDistanceScale=10
grass.DensityScale=1.0
r.SkeletalMeshLODBias=-2
r.StaticMeshLODDistanceScale=0.01
r.LensFlareQuality=0
r.DefaultFeature.LensFlare=0
r.ShadowQuality=3
r.Shadow.CSM.MaxCascades=16
r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2
r.Shadow.MaxResolution=4096
r.Shadow.MaxCSMResolution=4096
r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.01
r.Shadow.TexelsPerPixel=10
r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=3.0
r.MipMapLODBias=-2
r.Shadow.CSMDepthBias=5

if you use the tool i talked about, unreal engine unlocker you can tweak those settings to your liking, basically when using that tool you can unlock console and play with settings, including fov.

i play with fov 110 for this game and i like it that way, be warned that if you play with default fov my profile at the settings i use will look crap because fov will be way too low.

[Ralf]

Generally As high as as you can go without sacrificig too much performance.

Typically 1440p roughly yields 1:1 pixel mapping on normal headsets, but if you can afford it performance wise, even higher resolutions are worth a shot. Running games with higher resolution does for vorpX what enabling supersampling does for native apps.

[steph12]

so i tweaked some settings and now the games looks gorgeous and almost clipping free :D

i play in Z3D for performance reason, it looks great !

look for engine.ini in users/username/appdata/local/AT/saved/config/windowsnoeditor and copy/paste this after everything already in there and make the file read only

[SystemSettings]
r.Tonemapper.GrainQuantization=0
r.Tonemapper.Quality=0
r.SceneColorFringe.Max=0
r.SceneColorFringeQuality=0
r.MaxAnisotropy=16
r.ViewDistanceScale=3
foliage.LODDistanceScale=10
r.SkeletalMeshLODBias=-2
r.StaticMeshLODDistanceScale=0.1
r.LensFlareQuality=0
r.DefaultFeature.LensFlare=0
r.ShadowQuality=1
r.Shadow.CSM.MaxCascades=3
r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2
r.Shadow.MaxResolution=4096
r.Shadow.MaxCSMResolution=4096
r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.01
r.Shadow.TexelsPerPixel=8
r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=3.0

[/script/engine.renderersettings]
r.ShadowQuality=1
r.Shadow.CSM.MaxCascades=3
r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2
r.Shadow.MaxResolution=4096
r.Shadow.MaxCSMResolution=4096
r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.01
r.Shadow.TexelsPerPixel=8
r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=3.0

and for fov, read my post above.

but encyclopedia get “FoV’d” as well meaning you wont be able to read it cause it will be too small, and FoV reset everytime you switch zones, it’s easy to fix tho and when you want to read encyclopedia just put back fov like something 60, it’s very easy to do so with universal unreal engine unlocker tool.