- This topic has 76 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated Jul 9, 2020 12:36am by
.
-
Posts
-
If the max. G3D separation is not enough for your taste, Z3D certainly will not. It’s main advantage is that it’s twice as fast, the price for that is less natural stereo 3D. Especially in VR framerate can be more important than perfect S3D for a comfortable experience.
RE dollhose: If everything looks tiny, you have to reduce the 3D-Strength not raise it even further. Trust me, I believe I know a few things about that kind of stuff. That is just how stereo vision works, in VR as well as in reality. If your eyes would be 30cm apart in reality, the real world also would look tiny. 3D-strength and perceived scale are two sides of the same medal.
I feel like we keep miscommunicating, so I’ll just keep it short as possible:
-Increasing the 3D depth didn’t make things look tiny to me. Increasing the FOV did, quite dramatically.
-Are there any games you would suggest for VorpX that have IDEAL depth levels already so that 5.0+ would be totally unnecessary?
I’ll make this my last response to this post as well. I’ll concede that I have no idea what it would take for a developer to implement such an option. If this required a fork lift change or required a massive amount of time to implement, this is understandable. Doesn’t change the fact the 3D strength is still too weak. Most PC games were never designed for VR anyway. VR in general is still in infancy. Many developers are creating new ways to play in VR and it is one massive experimentation….lol.
Some of the best VR experiences are coming from mods. Alien Isolation VR, Doom 3 Fully Possessed VR, Penumbra VR are amazing. The fact these were never originally designed for VR is ironic. Creativity is what makes PC gaming so dam fun. Hellblade VR with their experimentation “table top” mode is an incredible way to play a third person game in a headset.
Anyway, if that is what it is, you can’t fight city hall….lol. Nothing wrong with constructive feedback.
@ dimensionaldude: That has a similar effect in the end. You have to reduce the strength to counter it, not raise it. That is really just the way it works, you can’t get larger scale by raising the eye separation (which is what the ‘3D-Strength’ option is), the opposite is the case.
Lower ‘3D-Strength’ -> world appears to be bigger.
Higher ‘3D-Strength’ -> world appears to be smaller.Wouldn’t be any different in reality if you could change the distance between your actual eyes. Not sure how to explain that any better.
@Ralf
I need to experiment more. I did more testing in Sin Episodes and I realized that 5.0 was perfect for cinema mode IF I changed the screen distance to the default. I had my distance at negative values to make the screen larger.So yes, at default distance in Cinema mode, 5.0 looks just right. If I make the screen any larger, then it starts looking more flat, since I’m essentially just zooming in the image. So I apologize, all my commentary was for when the cinema screen distance is at closer than default values.
I still think increased depth would help, but I’m less in despair about it now. It sounds like I have to choose between either a smaller screen, less depth, or an FOV that’s too high. I’ll try to figure this out, but yes, if the screen is not zoomed in at all, 5.0 looks about perfect for Source engine games at least.
@Stryker_66
It’s true popular games will get VR mods, but games from the late 90s to early 2000s? Forget about it, VorpX is the only game in town, that’s what makes this so frustrating.Try to keep the correlation between 3D-Strength and scale in mind:
Lower ‘3D-Strength’ (eye separation) -> world appears to be bigger.
Higher ‘3D-Strength’ (eye separation) -> world appears to be smaller.Not the other way around. That’s a very basic law of stereo vision, in vorpX as well as in reality.
I’m not disputing that, it’s more that the effect I think is far more subtle than an FOV change.Besides, it seems like that’s what I was trying to solve:
Higher separation (world looks smaller) + shorter screen distance (world looks bigger) = potentially perfect image. I was trying to make the two cancel each other out for the best quality picture.
If you are after a realistic scale, you should have no problem achieving that for any game given the already far larger than necessary range that vorpX provides.
In full VR mode the right vertical FOV would be 97°. For games that use a horizontal FOV value that might translate into different values unfortunately depending on how the game internally calculates FOV. Try 112° or 127° in that case which are common options for horizontal FOVs. In cinema/immersive screen mode the required perfect FOV would be lower, how much depends on the screen distance.
May I ask which game you are trying to tweak?
I’m trying to achieve realistic depth more than realistic scale, but ideally both. Afterall, realistic scale can be achieved even with a 2D image.
Right now I’ve been experimenting with Sin Episodes: Emergence (uses Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines profile) and Assassin’s Creed: Unity. I plan to experiment on many more, but I’ll need a few days to test more.
Regardless, I suspect we might be miscommunicating again. Realistic depth is my top priority. Here was my process:
1. Reduce cinema screen distance until it fills up a comfortable amount of the VR view.
2. Adjust FOV in-game so the scale is correct (I found the VorpX FOV option to cause artifacts every time, so I don’t use it).
3. Increase depth until it looks correct.Step #3 is where I kept running into a wall with the 5.0 limit. The size was good, the scale was good, the depth was ALMOST where I wanted it. Based on my conversation with you so far, it sounds like I’ll have to sacrifice step #1 in order to have a depth of 5.0 be adequate, resulting in a smaller screen, but appropriate depth.
In other words, I can have #1 (a large virtual screen) or #3 (good depth), but I can’t have both, because of the 5.0 limit.
Realistic scale and realistic depth are the same thing. Apparently I’m unable to communicate that in an understandable way. Depth and scale are one side of the same medal. There is no way to change one separately from the other.
Try to imagine depth as scale in the direction you are looking, maybe that helps.
Lower ‘3D-Strength’ (eye separation) -> world appears to be bigger.
Higher ‘3D-Strength’ (eye separation) -> world appears to be smaller.That’s not some strange behaviour of vorpX, that is how stereo vision works. With vorpX just as in reality. The strength of the 3D effect (= distance between the ‘eyes’) directly determines how big or small you perceive the world. Both are linked, they are not two separate things.
If the world appears to be tiny after your FOV tweaks, you have to lower the eye separation to get a realistic depth/scale, not raise it.
Again, my apologies for taking up your time, but we’re discussing multiple concepts and not all are delivering. I made a picture to try and explain it better:
In BOTH CASES, I can adjust the FOV to have the scale be appropriate, but when the screen is larger (-0.70 offset), I cannot do that AND have good depth. I hope that clears up what I’m saying.
I understand perfectly, and having done several hundred game profiles I can assure you that the available range is far larger than necessary to achieve realistic depth/scale (remember: basically the same thing). Maybe double check your FOV values. For a cinema screen exactly filling your view vertically, the ideal FOV values posted above apply 1:1.
I realize that this is a technical discussion, but it seems to revolves around what appears to be preference on the part of those who want greater strength. Maybe my HMD is different, but after I get above 3.0 on strength, the visual representation is impossible. I trust Ralf implicity on VorpX, and I think you, Ralf, make excellent decisions regarding VorpX. Carry on!
Thanks. For those coming late to the party: that’s exactly the reason why the max is where it is. Any realism discussions aside, you get split images with nearby objects before the max. value is even reached, so essentially it’s already higher than it should be.
I realize that this is a technical discussion, but it seems to revolves around what appears to be preference on the part of those who want greater strength. Maybe my HMD is different, but after I get above 3.0 on strength, the visual representation is impossible. I trust Ralf implicity on VorpX, and I think you, Ralf, make excellent decisions regarding VorpX. Carry on!
It’s possible because I’m on the DK2, that’s causing such a huge divide on the perception. That would be great if that’s all it is, since I was planning to upgrade if I can get good VorpX values. I totally understand not tuning VorpX for something that old, though I don’t know if that’s the main issue or not or if we just perceive the world differently or what. For what it’s worth, I saw Avatar in the theater in 3D and thought it was definitely too shallow also compared to 3D shorts I had seen in a theme park before.
Do you have any examples of games you think have great depth in VorpX in Cinema mode?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.