Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You just want to achieve something that you can’t: real world scale with more than real world depth. That would be cool, but it’s not possible.
I don’t want to go in circles explaining my position. You’re reading too much into what I’m saying. All I want is a little higher 3D strength limit option that can be accessed somehow (like a 6 or 7). If you change your mind in the future, my offer still stands. I will pay $300 to have that feature added, that’s how much I’d like to see it. I feel bad I’ve taken so much of your time on this as it is. You’ve made great software, I think we’ll just never agree on the ideal settings.
Again, sorry to have wasted so much of your time. This whole thread makes me question if something is wrong with my vision, I don’t get why the images that look too flat to me seem perfect for others.
Trying one last time. I’d really like you to understand that since then you wouldn’t try to chase the impossible: scale and depth are inseparable linked to each other, they are very much the same thing.
There is no such thing as correct scale with wrong depth. If scale is right, depth is right. Cold math/physics. That really simply is how stereoscopy works. In VR, in reality, everywhere. Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I can’t change the laws of physics.
I get what you’re saying, and I’m in no way questioning your code that it’s not interpreting the data accurately. I guess the better way to word it would be:
PERCEIVED horizontal + vertical scale = perfect
PERCEIVED depth = looks too flat, doesn’t resemble reality to me.I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying my brain is constantly telling me the depth level is too flat in some of the games I’m seeing with a closer viewing distance, despite everything else being on the money.
Again, it’s like we’re seeing two different things. If you say the sky is blue and I say it’s purple, it doesn’t matter how accurate you are if I’m literally seeing purple and want glasses to adjust it. That doesn’t make the sky purple, it just means I’m SEEING purple and want to see it blue.
@Listen, I’m sorry to have taken up so much of your time. You’ve made it clear what your stance is. I really hope it’s just an anomaly on my end.
All I can say I’m having situations like this in multiple games:
Vertical and Horizontal Scale = perfect
Screen size = perfect
Depth = clearly looks a little too flat, compared to reality all around me.You obviously haven’t run across anything like this in your testing, so we may as well be speaking different languages. From your perspective, you’re seeing the sky as blue and I’m saying it’s purple. Don’t let me waste more of your time on this, I’ll just say I can’t deny the reality of what I’m seeing and I hope it’s just an HMD issue.
@zahncisten
Could be, but please post some of those settings if you can find any, it would be very helpful for my testing.
@Stryker_66
I’m just trying to get a good image. I think Screen Depth is the answer, but since that’s not an option, I’m exploring other options. Since you have a CV1 and also have depth issues, maybe you can give me some notes on games you have issues with that I could compare with. I was going to private message you, but I don’t think that’s an option for these forums.I just checked AC:Unity for you to be extra sure I don’t tell any nonsense here. With default settings (not even tweaking FOV) and just moving the the screen closer it is no problem to make the world look a lot smaller than real by setting the 3D-Strength to the max. – which means it has “more depth” than you get in reality.
If you tweak the FOV to be higher to match the screen being ultra close to your face, that’s even more the case.
To get a realistic scale/depth (again: both are the same thing), you do not need more than the 5.0 max depth in this situation, in fact you need less. Again: that’s how stereo vision works. It’s math, physics, whatever you want to call it, it’s not opinion, taste or anything even remotely close to it.
If realistic scale/depth is your goal, it’s no problem at all to achieve that with the available range.
Thank you for checking on it, but listen, let’s be logical:
We both our have our own perceptions of what is real, we see 3D every day in our lives. If a person or apple or whatever is in front of me, I know about how much depth it has, etc.
Yes, of course this is all based on math. So if one person is seeing something with the same settings and says it’s way too flat, and the other person sees it and says it’s perfect, that means there is an EXTRA VARIABLE involved. It could be me having a DK2 instead of a CV1 is the problem (I hope it is). The fact that 5.0 depth is BARELY on the edge of correct depth to me says something is obviously different on my end. Believe me, I’m GLAD to find out if it’s a special issue on my end that can be remedied.
In other words 2 + 2 always equals 4. However 2 + 2 + X does not always equal 4. I’m trying to determine what’s so different on my end that 5.0 is at the very edge of acceptability on my VR set. Again, I’m hoping it’s my headset itself.
Dragon Age Origins has perfect depth (orzammar is incredible for understanding the perception. It looks awesome). I play all games in Cinema mode due to a balance condition (I’m dizzy all the time, so I need stationary things to keep steady, and cinema is perfect for that). I just finished Alien Isolation, that was incredible, and the depth was great. I’ve tooled around with Metro 2033 (not Redux) and the depth is spot-on. Skyrim is always a solid. Oh, and Mass Effect 3 (I haven’t played 1 or 2 with VorpX). The G3D is stunning. I’ve used VorpX for a few months now, and I love it. I use it every day (I’m not kidding), it really is great. If you think you are seeing things flat and you think it may be your HMD, definitely try newer hardware. I’d do that before I started thinking VorpX needed to be way different for my peculiar use-case.
I have Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect 3, and Metro 2033. I’ll test those in the next couple days when I get a chance. I’d like to ask more specifics if you don’t mind:
-What screen distance offset setting do you use?
-What aspect ratio do you use (4:3 / 16:9, etc.)?
-Any other tweaks you recommend for them, like custom FOV, etc?
-If you don’t mind sometime, pick a game you think has good depth, and temporarily decrease the screen distance value and look at something close to you. Does the depth seem lower at all?I’ll assume you play with a screen depth of 3.0 or less for all them.
And hey, you don’t need to convince me VorpX is great software. It’s the entire basis of me wanting to upgrade my VR set. I just want to get this one aspect ironed out and I’m halfway to heaven.
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?
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’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.
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.
@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.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?
@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?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.
@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.