- This topic has 18 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated Feb 24, 2021 7:54pm by
.
-
Posts
-
G3D is half the fps and much less games allow it. I never used vorpX and I never switched between G3D and Z3D.
My only experience with VR is when I played Serious Sam VR for 10 minutes on Vive Pro, I am not sure if that was G3D or Z3D. I want to play Battlefield games and from one list I read, none of them support G3D.
How much better is G3D? Z3D to me sounds like fake inferior VR while G3D sounds like the real deal awesome experience, but I never tried it. Please tell me about G3D vs Z3D comparsion, also if you are BF player, how do you like the Battlefield games with Z3D.
hello,
look at this site
http://rjkole.com/gamestuff/engines/
vorpx users can make their own profiles and you can find these profiles in the cloud, many battlefield games work in G3D (according to this site).
g3d is like real VR experience, Z3D is more like nvidia 3D glasses experience (but it’s been a long time since i sold my 3D nvidia screen).
G3D is really impressive but you need a powerful computer to enjoy it, or reduce graphics tremendously and/or lower resolution.
Z3D is still great for third person games.
that being said, i played dishonored 2 in Z3D and i had a blast, still very immersive.
Serious Sam VR is just like geo3d, in that everything looks at the proper scale and distance, since both are in fact real 3d, in the case of vorpx with a few adjustments to fov and 3d strength, or any DirectVR supported game.
Steph is wrong, nvidia 3d vision is real 3d,and if you unlock convergence it’s creates a fantastic 3d experience. 3d vision has its own z3d mode called compatibility mode, that again works in any game and has great performance.
Z3D could be compared with most 3d movies that have been converted to 3d (all of them except a few ones) instead of filmed in 3d,were 3d strength is limited and feels not proper 3d in many cases Several other issues with z3d or other simulated 3d methods are terrain or geometry that looks wrong at different distances, or scale issues.
Vorpx z3d can be really good in some games, but in my experience lacks depth, meaning that objects don’t go too far away into the distance compared to real 3d. It’s still a good option if your rig performance isn’t very good
Geometry 3D adds a second camera (one for each eye) to give stereo vision. This is why it looks most real and cost double performance.
Z-bufer 3D takes the flat image, calculates the Z distance of objects on screen, and modifies the image slightly different for each eye. it “cuts out” objects and moves them slightly off to one side, then fills the gaps will color prediction to blend it. This can be noticed as a slight transparent outline around objects nearest the screen (weapon/hand models), but the distant world will have compelling depth.
As long as your focus is more on the world in front of you, and not the gun you are holding, I say Z3D looks great in the Battlefield games (BF1 BFV).
BF2 has G3D, tried it just last night. Awesome too.
g3d is like real VR experience, Z3D is more like nvidia 3D glasses experience (but it’s been a long time since i sold my 3D nvidia screen).
Ummm no…
Without too many technicalities, I would say that both solutions have their advantages and disadvantages.
On the one hand G3D feels like real 3D, for me it is wonderful and impressive, being my preferred method.
I appreciate the relief of objects at short and medium distance and depth, and as long as my framerate allows it, I prefer to use this reconstruction. On the contrary it consumes enough resources, and Unfortunately…it is not always easy or possible to fix shadows and other effects perfectly.On the other hand, Z-3D would define it as a simulated “3D” effect, normally it is quite less noticeable, although depending on each game, sometimes I can obtain more remarkable results, and sometimes not so much.
Particularly, I like it and it helps me a lot in open environments and I found some concrete examples in Vorpx, with very good Z 3d profile.
Z-3D does not have so many problems with shadows and effects, and one of its biggest advantages is performance, because unlike geometry, Z-3D consumes much less resources.To cite some negative point, sometimes we can see a small halo or transparent bubble on the edges of certain objects, along with a less noticeable 3D effect.
In short, I love having both methods, and I need both if possible, to be able to choose accordingly, according to each specific case.
Geometry 3D adds a second camera (one for each eye) to give stereo vision. This is why it looks most real and cost double performance.
It sounds obvious, but…
I was using Nvidia 3d Vision before it was dumped by vendor. It was in fact doing real Geometry 3d, not Z3D for sure. And the performance was dropping only by like 10-15%. Rendering a second cam should not cost double performace, as most of the rendering of the scene can be shared between both cams, and only at final rendering stage it needs to be separated.
Also games that are made specially for VR, are actually real 3d and they run on my same machine on max graphics and high resolutions at maximum frame rates. Even though, they also need to render two eyes.
I was expecting performance drop with vorpx when using G3D, but not that much. In example Farming Simulator 19 on same machine, was running for me with Nvidia 3d Vision at 60fps at maxed out graphics stable. While with vorpx G3D it breaks down to something like 10fps. Even with lowest graphics settings and lowest resultion its not going higher then 30 but of course looks like mess. With Z3D runs smoothly at 60 fps with max settings and high res. G3D kills the performance for FS19 completely it’s not just halving the performance, it kills it completelly. So actually even though G3D is available for FS19 it is in fact unusable.
I assume therefore that the method how vorpx realises G3D certainly has some issues with the performance, and it cannot be justified by just saying, well it has to render everything twice. No it doesn’t. If it does it, then its not an optimal solution.
I am suspecting, that G3D breaks the performance in vorpx because it actually renders everything 3 times from scratch and is not sharing ressources. Don’t forget the monitor. I have a reason to believe that monitor is rendered compeletely separately. 1. It runs a different resolution. 2. When changing camera hight in vorpx G3D settings, it does not affect the monitor, you see it only in VR.
There’s a world of difference between games that were designed for 3d/vr versus those that were not. 3D Vision requires/required a stereo profile for a game before it would work, which essentially required collaboration between the game developer and nvidia – the game devs tackled the stereo rendering up front.
I’ve used tridef, perception, superdepth3dvr, helixvision, and vorpx to get 3d in games that weren’t specifically designed for stereo, and among those, vorpx is the leader in terms of performance. HelixVision uses 3d vision, but in games that weren’t designed for stereo, it doesn’t perform as well as vorpx, and is extremely limited (requires old nvidia drivers, etc.).
I love using helixvision for the vulkan support, but yeah, if I can use either or then I prefer VorpX. They complement each other and that’s the way the creator of helixvision wants it to be.
3D Vision requires/required a stereo profile for a game before it would work, which essentially required collaboration between the game developer and nvidia
Yes, but there was helixvision.
I fail to see your point. HelixVision performance loss is no where near 10-15%. The last time I tried it, the framerate was around 30 fps and the flickering was so bad that it made me dizzy.
Tipp of the day:
The old Shadowman from 1999 looks awsome in Z3D using DGVoodoo2. you probably wouldnt miss G3D. Some other DX6 titles do so as well.
RJK, your Wiki link again says “ERROR: 403 – Access from your IP address has been blocked for security reasons.”
What’s wrong with your website man? Every time i want to look at it, it is unavailable. I can’t help but feel penalized for something i didn’t do. Is Germany completely blocked? And why?
thats strange. Last time i used it was maybe 3 years ago, at least on my machine it didn’t cost me much performance. Realy maybe 10-15% no more. Almost not noticable for most of the games that i played. Including FS19. I was running it on same machine at max resolution and max graphic settings with 60 fps with nvidia 3d vision. Now same game, same machine with vorpx its a whole different story.
However i have noticed already that the performance drop with vorpx can vary for different games. Tried Green Hell, losing only about 30% and can still play it well with high res and medium graphics. Now with the basic unity profile that i created for stationeers there is also not much performance loss for me, absolutelly playable. Maybe its just FS19 that performs so bad with vorpx in G3D mode, after all they use their own engine. It may have supported nvidia out of the box (there were no any glitches with nvidia).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.