difference between z-normal and z-adaptive

[matteo39]

often I find myself having to use the z-normal instead of the g3d (I have a 1060 gtx): for example in mass effect andromeda, to have a good fluidity, I’m using the z-normal ..

but I have not yet understood the difference between z-normal and z-adaptive: the z-adaptive seems to me identical to the z-normal, except that the view is not perfectly in focus..

what is the difference? maybe i must set something for z-adaptive, to see all clear…

[matteo39]

Anyone use z-adaptive?

[Ralf]

Copy/paste answer from yesterday below. Might be a bit technical, sorry. I can’t really think of a good way to explain it without any techno-babble.

—

You can think of Z3D Adaptive as having autofocus. With Z3D Adaptive the stereo images always converge at the center of the view, taking into account how far the object in the center is away from your eyes. Also a dynamic depth of field effect is applied based on this information similar to how objects out of focus get blurred in reality.

All in all this is closer to how the human eye actually works in reality and thus can enhance the depth perception in some games.

It has a few drawbacks though. The main drawback is the focus being always in the screen center instead of where your eyes actually look at. Most of the time you look at the center, so that’s not a big deal usually, but a fully correct ‘autofocus’ would require a headset with eye tracking. Z3D Adaptive also doesn’t work well with third person games if the center of the view is covered by the player character.

So for games with the screen center being coverd by the player character Z3D Normal is usually the better choice, for first person or over the shoulder games Z3D Normal/Adaptive is largely a matter of taste. Both have their pros and cons.

[Author]

Posts