- This topic has 76 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated Jul 9, 2020 12:36am by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m noticing a bit of an impediment to using VorpX I’m hoping can be addressed either now or in the future. In multiple games now, (I tested Assassin’s Creed Unity, Half-Life 2, Serious Sam), I’m finding the maximum 3D strength (5.0) to still be a tad too flat for me. If I use the FOV enhancement tool in addition to that, that can make the depth look acceptable for me, however that invariably causes errors on the side of the screens, so I try to avoid it. In Source games, I can manually adjust the FOV to be higher, but then everything looks tinier. The ideal solution would to be increase the 3D strength / scale some more.
Is there a way I can hack in going beyond 5.0 for the 3D strength value? I feel like something like 6 or 7 would be perfect for me.
For what it’s worth, I’m playing in Cinema mode with Geometry rendering.
Great request and good timing for me. I have spent the last few days experimenting with some third person games with VorpX and have found the 3D strength to be very weak. This lock of 5.0 is too restrictive.
The reason for these recent experiments are because of my recent play through of Hellblade Senuas Sacrifice VR. My hats off to Ninja Theory for providing the VR version free to the owners of the original version. They built in an option under experimentation called “table top” and playing with this mode is nothing short of amazing and a compelling experience. I am a huge 3D Vision user and play games 95% of the time in a way which can be described as a “toyification” or “doll house” effect. 3D Vision allows for separate convergence and depth settings which are non restrictive and makes games amazing to play in this way. How we play games is subjective. Thankfully PC gaming allows for modifications and customizing. This provides for maximum enjoyment and personal experience.
Providing unlimited or much higher 3D strength in VorpX would be a massive improvement. There are only a handful of games that are good with VorpX and it’s not a fault of VorpX since most games were never designed for VR.
Having said that, I’ve tried a few games such as The Witcher, Neverwinter Nights, Gothic III, Dragon Age Origins and a few others in VorpX and the 3D strength is just lacking. I was wondering in the last few days if there was a way to get beyond the 3D strength of 5…….anyone with ideas to get beyond the limit of 5 for 3D strength?
Just last night I was testing profiles on an unsupported game, and the one which finally yielded Geometry didn’t give quite enough at 5.0
It was likely beyond sufficient for the game it was based on, but applying it to another game needed much higher values. If there’s no real danger in increasing the range I could see its uses.
On a similar note for Z-normal, I’d find more incremental half steps for near-far depth weighting useful. I often want it somewhere in between.
Also moving image zoom slider for fullVR to the main page (like the cinema screens do) would save much switching back and forth when trying to set the right fov + strength combo.
@ Stryker: Over the weekend I got 3D working for some Total War games and was able to crank up the strength. It turned into toy soldiers haha, was pretty neat looking. I posted about it here if you’re interested.
@dellrifter22: Thanks for the link but I find the current VR Headsets lack the graphic fidelity and 3D strength to play games like the Total War series. Mainly because of the text and labels to identify things. I did try your Rift profile for Empire but as suspected, didn’t look too good. Nothing to do with your profile though. I’ve played hundreds of hours with 3D Vision and I’ve been spoiled with the toyification effect along with the graphic fidelity on 120″ screen using a 3D Vision projector. Top notch stuff.
Hopefully the 3D strength can be unlocked or increased within Vorpx. There are several third person games that may still be good using Vorpx. As I mentioned before, the table top mode in Hellblade VR is really amazing.
@Stryker_66: I also come from using 3D Vision in the past and I agree, things are just slightly too flat with VorpX. I wouldn’t say they’re “very flat” in geometry mode, it’s just that at 5.0, everything is *ALMOST* good enough for me and it’s really making me wish I could push things just a little further.
Is there a way we can vote to make this our most requested feature? I’m guessing some of us would prefer this more than any one additional game supported, since it affects so many others we could try.
The goal of VR typically is to recreate scale and 3D in a natural way. Base profile parameters are usually defined so that this is the case at or close to the 1.0 you see in the vorpX menu. Originally the user definable max. was 2.0 and was later raised to 5.0 due to similar requests in the past. You probably would like another answer, and I can understand that, but that is where it will stay. Beyond that you get serious convergence issues with objects nearby. Untrained people will reach that point long before 5.0.
For reference: a 3D-Strength of 5.0 usually means being a giant with eyes 30cm apart, or in other words a 1.8m NPC appears only 0.36m high. That should be “enough 3D” even for most who aren’t after realism.
BTW: Ideally a VR app should have no user definable 3D-strength setting at all, no VR game has something like that. In reality the amount of depth perceived is defined by the distance between your eyes and it should be the same way in VR. The only reason this setting was made available originally is that the scale of games not made for VR isn’t always 100% clear and consistent.
The goal of VR typically is to recreate scale and 3D in a natural way. Base profile parameters are usually defined so that this is the case at or close to the 1.0 you see in the vorpX menu. Originally the user definable max. was 2.0 and was later changed to 5.0 due to similar requests in the past. You probably would like another answer, and I can understand that, but that is where it will stay. Beyond that you get serious convergence issues with objects nearby. Untrained people will reach that point long before 5.0.
For reference: a 3D-Strength of 5.0 usually means being a giant with eyes 30cm apart, or in other words a 1.8m NPC appears only 0.36m high. That should be “enough 3D” even for most who aren’t after realism.
BTW: Ideally a VR app should have no user definable 3D-strength setting at all, no VR game has something like that. In reality the amount of depth perceived is defined by the distance between your eyes and it should be the same way in VR. The only reason this setting was made available originally is that the scale of games not made for VR isn’t always 100% clear and consistent.
I’d like to offer a respectful rebuttal to the points you’re making:
-You refer to other users having convergence issues that you don’t want to ruin their experience for. This is a fair point, however is there a hack-y solution advanced users who sincerely care about this could use? An additional .ini setting, registry key, something like that? Then advanced users could be happy and newcomers would have the option normally hidden from them so as not to cause problems. That would be an “everybody wins” solution as I see it.
-As far what’s the correct scale or not, you can tell me all day what’s right and wrong, however, I’m afraid I’m going by my own “lying eyes”. I’m not crunching the math on what the correct setting SHOULD be, I just know if I see a crate right in front of me and it seems obviously too flat and not like reality, then I need more depth. That’s literally all the consideration I’m giving to this. If I’m playing, and the entire time I’m thinking “this is still too flat”, I can’t shake that feeling and it significantly detracts from the experience for me.
-I agree completely that an ideal VR app should have no defined strength, because they’re tailored for a specific experience and should look one way. VorpX, by definition is about getting games running that are NOT designed for VR. The amount of depth needed for one game varies greatly from others. Additionally, Cinema mode halfway across the virtual room, is a different experience than Immersive mode, close up. There are a lot of variables involved, so what’s perfectly tailored for one method can be lacking in another.
In short, I’m practically begging you to reconsider. I’m in “Help Me Ralf, you’re my only hope” mode here.
I understand and I hesitated to reply at all since I somehow feared my reply wouldn’t be the end of the discussion. I still decided to give you a detailed explanation, but trying to explain the reasoning behind the max value is all I can do, sorry.
The 5.0 max was already raised from 2.0 about three years ago and is the final decision. Any realism reasons aside, this value was carefully chosen mainly because beyond that there are very serious stereo disconnects with objects nearby. For the majority of people that will happen long before 5.0.
@Ralf Well, you’re making it clear you’re not going to budge on this. All I can say this is immensely disappointing. I’ve been using stereoscopic 3D ever since the Elsa Revelator and it’s been one of the most wondrous experiences I’ve had. Even Nvidia’s buyout of Elsa I thought toned down the settings in many games to make them worse than the original experiences I’ve had. VorpX has been the ONLY software to come close to those fantastic experiences I’ve had in the past.
I’ve been building up a lot of hopes and plans as to all the games I can play and have been looking into new VR devices specifically for VorpX, assuming I would be tune it to get it just right for as many games as possible. To discover that I’m being blocked from being able to have those fantastic experiences again for reasons I honestly don’t understand is frustrating to say the least. I admit, I’m more passionate about this stuff than is probably healthy, I just want you to understand where I’m coming from.
I’m not exaggerating when I say I would willing to pay $300 or possibly more to have an OPTION to increase the depth more, even if it was something buried away in a special commandline option inaccessible by average users.
If you’re so resolved in your belief on the matter to refute customer feedback, solutions to satisfy both parties, and literally more money for you, then I guess I can’t do anything to convince you otherwise. I won’t debate it anymore with you, since I swear I’m not trying to cause you more work or problems, just know you’re really crushing my hopes for VR with this.
I have to consider more than things than just the wishes of a (sorry) very small minority of users who might want to play with a even more extreme “doll house” effect than the one already possible. Stereo disconnects lead to severe discomfort und thus the current max of 5.0 was carefully chosen. That is all I can say. Sorry again.
I understand that you want “more 3D”, whether that might be realistic or not. Please try to understand in return the decision I tried to explain in detail above. It has nothing to do with beliefs or opinions It’s purely based on the fact that beyond the current max the separation gets so high for nearby objects that it actually breaks the stereo 3D effect, far beyond a point already that is comfortable for most people.
This is an unfortunate response.
“Stereo disconnects lead to severe discomfort und thus the current max of 5.0 was carefully chosen. That is all I an say.”
No one is asking to force stronger 3D strength on anyone. Just asking for the option for those that want it. Any forms of entertainment are subjective in nature and from I’ve read around here on these forums, G3D support seems to be king as the preferred method.
Hope you may reconsider.
There has to be some limit and the limit chosen was chosen for the reasons explained multiple times above. Sorry again.
On a more general note: I really try to be as open as possible here and explain what deserves explanation, but sometimes you guys make that really, really hard. Please try to take an answer for an answer at least occasionally even if you do not like it.
If you ever wondered why you so seldomly get detailed explanations from developers anywhere, this is why.
I said I wouldn’t debate it more (I swear, I’m not trying to make this an argument), so feel free to not respond further, but two comments you made suggest a misunderstanding for what I’m asking, so I just wanted to clarify:
1. I wasn’t proposing making values above 5.0 accessible to the average user if that was a problem for you. I don’t understand the problem with having a commandline option like vorpx.exe -extremedepth being the only way to unlock the option. The typical user will never do that, and the vocal minority like ourselves would be in heaven.
2. The dollhouse effect is exactly what I’m trying to AVOID. I found that by increasing the FOV more in the games, it led to proper depth, but then everything was looking too tiny, exactly the dollhouse effect you’re describing. You may not believe me, but I WANT realistic scale and depth, I found the current settings didn’t accomplish that in the games I tested. My guess is 5.0 is more than enough in some games, not enough in others.
I’m certain you still disagree with me, I just wanted to clarify what my position was. In any event, thank you for the response, even if it’s a hard one.
Maybe what you mean by dollhouse effect is not what I mean. For me that word means the world appearing to be far smaller than it normally would. If that is also your definition, in order to avoid the dollhouse effect you have to reduce the 3D-Strength not raise it. The exaggerated stereo separation (i.e. disance between the virtual ‘cameras’) is the reason for the dollhouse effect.
If you mean something else, just ignore this post.
@Ralf No, that’s exactly what I mean.
I played SiN Episodes: Emergence recently, and I noticed that at the game’s default FOV (in Cinema mode), things looked about right at 5.0 but everything was a little too flat. If I increased the FOV, the depth started looking about right, but then everything was a little too tiny, like a doll, exactly as you’re describing.
I noticed the same effect in Assassin’s Creed Unity. I probably need to test more games since my memory is blurry on others. If there are any games you would suggest as a reference (preferably older ones, I don’t own many brand new games) that you think look perfect at less than 5.0 depth in cinema mode, I’d be very interested to know.
It could be I’m completely wrong on all this, but in my experience, it was the FOV increasing the dollhouse look, not the depth.
EDIT: I found a screenshot demonstrating the “dollhouse shrinkage” effect you get from increasing the FOV:
My understanding was the depth values were a separate value that didn’t cause that effect, just the relative distance the objects were from the camera.
@Stryker_66
I’m kind of surprised the Z buffer mode is offered at all. In everything I’ve tested it on, the effect was so weak it just wasn’t even worth running in my opinion. Have there been any games Z buffer mode does a great job with depth on?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.