46 replies to this topic

[Aidan]

Would you like to see 3D graphics on your display device in MWO ? Please express your preference.

An example of this for the PC is the NVIDIA 3D Vision system.

http://www.nvidia.co...ision-main.html

Here is a review comparing the NVIDIA and AMD 3D solutions.

http://www.tomshardw...aming,3019.html

Edited by Aidan, 29 March 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[CoffiNail]

They already confirmed this

[Galaxy613]

Wait, 3D models or 3D display supports? Isn't 3D monitor/TV support up to the graphics card?

[Rambo Calrissian]

Galaxy613, on 29 March 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Wait, 3D models or 3D display supports? Isn't 3D monitor/TV support up to the graphics card?

Partly.

Most games use some "tricks", which won't be notable in 2D, but will be disturbing in 3D, as they're often displayed wrong.

Some games have problems with shadows in 3D for example. Most unoptimized games will have HUD problems in 3D.
Watching the gameplay trailers of MWO, the smoke/explosions seem to be simple 2D effects for some parts. Those won't look right in 3D, if there are no extra 3D versions of them.

I'd love to have proper 3D support in MWO.



@Aidan
You should be more clear in your Opening Post, what you're actually talking about.

Edited by Rambo Calrissian, 30 March 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Hans Von Lohman]

That was poorly written.

I think this poll is about 3D, as in glasses and monitors giving you depth perception like James Cameron's Avatar is famous for. At first I was confused as the game has 3D graphics already, but I still think it could have been stated a little more clearly.

I vote no for now. I hate 3D and haven't gone to see John Carter in my local theaters because it isn't shown as a normal movie where you don't need to wear those stupid glasses.

[wwiiogre]

no spend resources on making the game better not making it playable for a niche market, just like this isn't being made to be played on MAC OS it doesn't need to be made to play in 3D, waste of limited resources. In the future if they have more money and time and resources and every mech is playable and every timeline is playable then sure make it 3D.

chris

[Heronimus Bosch]

In the Electric Playground interview Bryan states that they are working with Nvidia and their newest chipset on stereoscopic 3D support.

You can watch the interview at this link http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__173771

Edited by Heronimus Bosch, 29 March 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Aidan]

Rambo Calrissian, on 29 March 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Partly.

Most games use some "tricks", which won't be notable in 2D, but will be disturbing in 3D, as they're often displayed wrong.

Some games have problems with shadows in 3D for example. Most unoptimized games will have HUD problems in 3D.
Watching the gameplay trailers of MWO, the smoke/explosions seem to be simple 2D effects for some parts. Those won't look right in 3D.

I'd love to have proper 3D support in MWO.



@Aidan
You should be more clear in your Opening Post, what you're actually talking about.

Rambo,

My bad ... is it more clear now what I mean?

[Exilyth]

Unless it's true 3D (e.g. holographic) or as long as I can play on a normal screen, I don't care.

Still, I hope anaglyph and other non hardware specific modes are made available should 3D be included.

Edited by Exilyth, 31 March 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[Shai tan]

I`m a big 3D fan. Even have the Sansung 120 hz monitor etc. But when I demo`d the nVidia glasses, they were just too dark. 3D was there, but all that beautiful color and detail was lost. nVidia did release a version 2 of their glasses that is supposed to offer better/more brightness, but I am not sold as of yet.

[Lycan]

I despise the current 3D crazy and how everyone/thing seems to be "IN 3D"!!!!. Like that makes it cooler or can turn a piece of crap into anything by a polished piece of crap.

Granted, my opinion is based on the 3D movies that I've wasted money on so it is a biased opinion. And that being said, I don't care if they have a 3D option or not. I won't use it but that doesn't mean others should be deprived of the opportunity to do so.

Although I really hope if they do decide to go that route that those of us that don't chose to jump on the 3D bandwagon won't be stuck with a funky looking game.

[Aidan]

shai`tan, on 29 March 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

I`m a big 3D fan. Even have the Sansung 120 hz monitor etc. But when I demo`d the nVidia glasses, they were just too dark. 3D was there, but all that beautiful color and detail was lost. nVidia did release a version 2 of their glasses that is supposed to offer better/more brightness, but I am not sold as of yet.

Here is the 27" Samsung model. It does have 300 cd/m2 but this would be better at 400 cd/m2 coupled with more transparent active shutter glasses.

http://www.samsung.c...0DS/ZA-features

From what I can tell so far, the NVIDIA 3D Vision solution is optimized for CryENGINE3.

Edited by Aidan, 29 March 2012 - 03:16 PM.

[Rambo Calrissian]

Exilyth, on 29 March 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Unless it's true 3D (e.g. holographic), and I can play on a normal screen, I don't care.

Well .. you're asking for something technically impossible.

Exilyth, on 29 March 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Still, I hope anaglyph and other non hardware specific modes are made available should 3D be included.

This is always possible.
You can select your prefered technique for 3D in your driver settings (at least on an up-to-date NVidia-card .. not sure about AMD .. might need extra drivers).

shai`tan, on 29 March 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

I`m a big 3D fan. Even have the Sansung 120 hz monitor etc. But when I demo`d the nVidia glasses, they were just too dark. 3D was there, but all that beautiful color and detail was lost. nVidia did release a version 2 of their glasses that is supposed to offer better/more brightness, but I am not sold as of yet.

Nvidia is putting their efforts in the completely wrong technology.
Shutter-technique will always be a compromise.
You have that flickering, you need extremely fast monitors (and most TFTs are not fast enough .. even with 120Hz .. so you get ghosting and/or a very dark picture), and you always need those stupid shutter glasses.

Polarisation is the way to go!
- lighter and very cheap glasses (like 99Cent)
- not bound to a certain picture rate
- rather cheap to produce

My brother got a new 3D TV with polarisation (from I think LG). It wasn't even more expensive than similar 2D-screens. He got like 10 glasses for free with it.
The 3D-effect is better than what I've seen in some cinemas and it's not eye-killing.
It's of course only polarised per line, but you can't see that from your usual viewing distance.

This is definetly the technology to go.
There are even concepts, which allow to have the full resolution with two overlayed polarised pictured, but with high enough pixel resolutions that's not even necessary.

Lycan, on 29 March 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I despise the current 3D crazy and how everyone/thing seems to be "IN 3D"!!!!. Like that makes it cooler ...

Oh, it absolutely does.
Ever played a racing simulation on a proper 3D-setup?
It's a day-and-night-difference.

Lycan, on 29 March 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Granted, my opinion is based on the 3D movies that I've wasted money on so it is a biased opinion.

Yeah, those are often dissapointing, and to be honest:
I'd never ever consider to get a 3D-monitor just for movies. The real benefit of 3D is in gaming.

[Pulispher]

3D for PC still seems pretty hokum to me.

[Tryg]

One of the biggest problems with 3D used in movies isn't the technology itself, but rather the editors and camera men. Certain techniques that have been tried and true (For example, camera pans over a large crowd) work just fine in standard film, but in 3D a quick camera pan doesn't give your eyes time to focus and for a large portion of the populace, can have a dizzying effect. Games don't typically suffer this problem because the companies working on them are already taking motion-sickness into consideration when developing.

I think in the future, as the trend carries along its course, films will improve as the people shooting and the folks editing start to learn what does and doesn't work in 3D. And I suspect, as with most trends, it'll either improve or be shelved (this isn't the first time 3D became popular after all).

[Rambo Calrissian]

Another problem in films comes from the lens focus.
There are often blurry parts in the picture (background or near parts). In 3D it sometimes happens, that you try to focus on a blurry part with your eyes, but you simply can't get it sharp. The picture will stay blurry.
And this can be extremely fatiguing to the eyes and generate a very uncomfortable feeling while watching a 3D movie.

In 3D it's better to have everything sharp. This isn't a "perfect" illusion then, but it's a lot better than having very blurry parts in the picture.
Games are usually sharp everywhere or you can at least disable the blur-effects.

Pulispher, on 30 March 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

3D for PC still seems pretty hokum to me.

Care to explain?

Edited by Rambo Calrissian, 30 March 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Chuckie]

Heck I have been playing games in "3D" for years.. Nvidia cards have had a hook up for glasses to turn any game using a 3D engine, into a "3D" game

http://www.nvidia.co...technology.html

So your question is kind of moot.. as MW:O is using the CryTek3 engine and will be in "3D" natively..

Edited by Chuckie, 30 March 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[Matthew Craig]

As has been correctly pointed out we do intend to have 3D support, I know there are those that feel it's still a bit 'gimicky' at times. Having seen it working in our game I can tell you that personally I think it provides another level of immersion for those that want to choose it as an option. What I like about it the most is the sense of separation it gives you of the elements of the HUD that are intended to be on the pilots visor from those that are in the cockpit. With straight 2D this separation simply isn't as apparent.

I'm sure for many it will be personal preference but hopefully whether you want 3D or don't you'll find we're catering to as many options as we reasonably can. Some will be more interested in a particular controller, or graphics feature etc. if it's popular enough and makes sense for the game we want to do our best to ensure everyone can play our game the way they want to.

[Kenyon Burguess]

Matthew Craig, on 30 March 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

As has been correctly pointed out we do intend to have 3D support, I know there are those that feel it's still a bit 'gimicky' at times. Having seen it working in our game I can tell you that personally I think it provides another level of immersion for those that want to choose it as an option. What I like about it the most is the sense of separation it gives you of the elements of the HUD that are intended to be on the pilots visor from those that are in the cockpit. With straight 2D this separation simply isn't as apparent.

I'm sure for many it will be personal preference but hopefully whether you want 3D or don't you'll find we're catering to as many options as we reasonably can. Some will be more interested in a particular controller, or graphics feature etc. if it's popular enough and makes sense for the game we want to do our best to ensure everyone can play our game the way they want to.

please post specs for the baseline system you folks are using to test 3d. i would love to have that opertional when the game goes live.

[Chuckie]

Matthew Craig, on 30 March 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

I can tell you that personally I think it provides another level of immersion for those that want to choose it as an option. What I like about it the most is the sense of separation it gives you of the elements of the HUD that are intended to be on the pilots visor from those that are in the cockpit. With straight 2D this separation simply isn't as apparent.

I was thinking about that when I saw the cockpit in the videos.. makes me want to make sure I get a 3D gaming card.. and a big monitor..

If it weren't for the fact 3D gives me headaches.. I would probably play in 3D most of the time.