Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
@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.
One thing you should consider is that more FOV and resolution also means less performance since more has to be rendered. With demanding games you would have to trade image quality/details for higher FOV.
Specifically regarding vorpX it’s also worth noting that various DirectVR features (e.g. auto resolution) currently do not take Pimax’s unusual display configuration with two horizontal 16:9 panels into account. That may or may not change in the future depending on the eventual success of the Pimax headsets.
As far as performance, I’m not terribly worried about that, since I figure I can always just run old games that are less demanding while I wait for things to catch up. Even on my DK2, I tried running Assassin’s Creed Unity in low graphics and performance was through the floor on geometry mode. I’m expecting many newer games to simply not be an option for me at this point in time until there are some more breakthroughs either with software or hardware.
Your note about DirectVR not supporting the wider FOV is certainly something for me to consider however. If the wider resolution would create problems overall, that might make me want to shy away from it.
So glad to hear this. My Odyssey should ship Monday. Can’t wait…
Please give a follow-up of your impressions of VorpX with the Odyssey. How well it works with it is one of my considerations for pulling the trigger on it.