Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ralf, you say you aren’t able to implement TrackIR emulation – is there any reason you couldn’t implement an open-source TrackIR solution such as OpenTrack?
Thanks for responding, Ralf. I’d like to throw my 2c in again by saying that it’s not just DK2 support people are impatient for – it’s all of the small features and everything that has been promised. You’re bundling too many features into each update. From what I’m reading, this update will include DK2 support, DX11 geometry support, lots of setting changes, fixed shaders in Skyrim, an automated licensing solution, and probably more that you haven’t mentioned. That is just NUTS. Hell, I’d be happy with the letterbox rendering changes only, which were supposedly resolved 4 months ago. Why do I have to wait for DK2 support for that fix? You’re trying to be Internet Explorer when you should be Chrome. Change your dev cycle to release small features silently and very often. It minimizes risk for you, keeps your community engaged and happy, and shows that you are constantly working on our investment.
The last update was in November of 2013. I think the OP has every right to ask. This was not a cheap piece of software, and frequent updates were promised outright as part of the purchase. That’s not even mentioning that specifically in these forums and on reddit, updates were promised in March, April, May, June and July. Obviously nothing was delivered.
Ralf, from one developer to another: small, timely updates keep the community interest in your software high. Broken promises, long delays, and vague release dates build resentment. We should all be here to talk about how awesome VorpX is, but instead, it’s been 9 months since we had even a minor update, and we’re all on the spectrum of impatient and pissed off. We’re a community of developers and enthusiasts. Save the polish for a consumer hardware release. Release what you have, whatever state it’s in, and frequently, so we can have fun with it and help you make it better.
Ralf, now that the SDK is out, when can we expect a long-awaited VorpX update? And for DK2 support, are you going to support all of the new SDK features, including:
– Direct display mode
– Timewarp (this would be a godsend for the geometry 3d performance hit!)of course it’s a nuisance. This is VR, not a mouse. When you move your head 90 degrees, the camera should move 90 degrees, period.
Thanks for the reply. I just want to add my 2 cents that VorpX is getting a reputation as “not real VR” – or even worse, that such drivers will ALWAYS be worse than native VR, since most people don’t understand the difference in 3D rendering techniques – they just notice that the sense of presence is worse than in the Oculus demos. The plain fact is that stereo perception and sense of presence happens most effectively on near-range scenes, which is where z-buffer rendering just fails miserably. I understand the benefit of the performance gains, and the necessity in games where effect shaders screw up geometry 3d too badly, but I would really like to emphasize the importance of having first-class working geometry 3D above all else, especially in games that fully support it. It’s disappointing to hear that you’ve sacrificed fidelity in geometry 3D to support your z-buffer rendering. I sincerely hope that you reconsider and put in some effort to fixing the scaling issues… they are a dealbreaker for me and many others, and are ruining injection drivers’ reputation within the community. Again, thanks for your reply – I really appreciate your activist approach to support and community outreach, it shows you really care about your product.
Ralf, any response to my thoughts above? VorpX isn’t cheap, and I spent a GREAT deal of time tweaking to get an only barely acceptable result, so it would be nice to hear that the resolution scaling issues are being addressed. Thanks for your time.
ok! I did a great deal more troubleshooting and tweaking, and have basically reduced the effect to be unnoticeable. However, how I did so is totally unreasonable. Here are my findings.
– Ralf, you’ve suggested that VorpX works best at resolutions of 4:3 or 5:4. Although these resolutions certainly reduced the fisheye effect, and reduced the appearance of everything being stretched vertically, at 1280×1024 (5:4) the distortion was still present and greatly noticeable. However, a combination of carefully tweaking the image zoom, the game’s FOV, setting the “simple” aspect ratio correction, and tweaking the eye offset resulted in a greatly reduced fisheye effect. To me, this indicates that the distortion shader is not scaled or changed properly based on VorpX’s settings… unlike Vireio, Tridef and other stereo solutions out there.
– Although a 4:3 resolution of 5:4 is suggested, I noticed that 5:4 was still less stretched and better than 4:3. This indicated that the more square the resolution, the better VorpX hadles it. Confirming my suspicion, I was able to add a custom GPU-scaled square resolution of 1280×1280 (1:1), which successfully eliminated the effect entirely. Hmmmm.
Ralf, I urge you to please reconsider how you are implementing your image projection and applying your distortion shader. Neither Tridef nor Vireio have such issues with aspect ratio or image distortion. Neither Tridef nor Vireio require any sort of aspect ratio correction, and both work fine with not only 16:9 resolutions, but ANY resolution that you throw at them. The distortion shader is scaled properly no matter how the image is zoomed, what your FOV is, or what your stereo separation settings are. Requiring users to use 4:3 or 5:4 resolutions within a very thin margin of ‘correct’ stereo settings is a clear indicator that something is horribly broken in VorpX’s rendering. Since Vireio is open source, I really hope you can take a look at it’s implementation and apply your findings to VorpX. You clearly have a better sense of polish and product than Vireio… but despite the fact that I paid for it, I unfortunately find myself using Vireio more often simply because the rendering is vastly superior.
I’ve spent so much time staring at my Rift trying to solve this issue that I feel fairly strongly that the AR correction has nothing to do with it… the various AR modes certainly have an effect, but overall, contrary to what you’re saying, “Smart” is one of the modes with the LEAST amount of distortion.
Like I said, the issue is present on every single VorpX video on YouTube as well, so it’s not just my system. It’s also worth mentioning that the aspect ratio of every game I’ve tried seems stretched vertically using VorpX (other than the letterbox 1 AR mode). There is something strange going on with VorpX vs every other Rift solution, which is quite frustrating since VorpX is the most expensive and doesn’t have a trial. It’s pretty disappointing to hear that not only is there not a fix in the works, but that you either can’t reproduce or somehow don’t notice it.
Letterbox1 is the only AR mode that has what appears to be a correct aspect ratio and the least amount of distortion, but it still doesn’t take up the full FOV at current max zoom levels. Would you at least be able to make next version of VorpX allow us to zoom in further?
Hi Ralf – Right, I’ve read a similar response from you before, but there is clearly some other factor involved as distortion is present in all configurations and scenarios, not just those two specified. When using Smart AR and/or 2D FOV correction , the distortion effect is clearly exaggerated, but they are definitely not the causing factor. Using any of the AR modes, at all resolutions, at any zoom or FOV level, results in clearly visible “fisheye” distortion on all edges, not just the top on bottom. Like I said, this distortion is not present in any other driver or rift game. Other posts around the internet indicate that I am not alone.
Also, I’m using Vignette scaling at it’s max of 1.30 and can still very clearly see all edges on Letterbox1 mode. I’m using the A lenses with the screen as tight in as it goes.
And just to elaborate on my troubleshooting process, I did notice this thread and others like it:
As suggested, I tried 5:4 and 4:3 resolutions such as 1280×1024 and 1600×1200 using all of the various aspect ratio correction methods. The effect was alleviated, but it’s absolutely still there.