> Thanks Scott. You prompted me to try Elite in 3D, again.
> When I first tried it. The screen looked like one of those old arcade
> games. 2D -> 3D with different distinct layers. It has improved so much
> that you don't notice it is 3D. :-D

I'm not sure whether it was the game (Gran Turismo) or my TV that made 
the 3D bad. My TV is a long way from my PC and both are difficult to 
move so I'm pretty limited to using my PS3 for testing out the 3D. What 
I found was there was very little 3D effect (compared to the 
glasses-free 3D on the 3DS and phones or the tinted glasses) and that 
there was a distractingly large amount of cross-talk between the left 
and right images. It was pretty horrible.

> That is not going to stop me buying an Oculus Rift when the commercial
> version is available, though.

Definitely, although for the game I am most interested in there is a 
huge debate in the forums about whether triple monitors or the rift is 
better. I would be worried I bought the rift, tried to get used to it 
and eventually discovered that trips were still better.

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.03.2015 um 09:25 schrieb scott:

>> Better have the GPU render to an interim image buffer (possibly at low
>> framerate), and have a separate thingumajig do high-speed fixed-rate
>> mapping of that interim image buffer to the VR display, taking into
>> account the extrapolated direction you'll be facing the very moment the
>> image will actually appear.
>
> I think I remember reading thet top nVidia cards do that already, they
> just use the actual previous framebuffer at full resolution and shift it.

To all my knowledge that's not a video card specific thing, but a 
general part of the Oculus API. (The application/game must be written to 
support it though.)

For this to work best though, the framerate (and hence the lag, which 
still exists) needs to be known so that the head movement can be 
extrapolated into the future.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/03/2015 13:00, scott wrote:
>> Thanks Scott. You prompted me to try Elite in 3D, again.
>> When I first tried it. The screen looked like one of those old arcade
>> games. 2D -> 3D with different distinct layers. It has improved so much
>> that you don't notice it is 3D. :-D
>
> I'm not sure whether it was the game (Gran Turismo) or my TV that made
> the 3D bad. My TV is a long way from my PC and both are difficult to
> move so I'm pretty limited to using my PS3 for testing out the 3D. What
> I found was there was very little 3D effect (compared to the
> glasses-free 3D on the 3DS and phones or the tinted glasses) and that
> there was a distractingly large amount of cross-talk between the left
> and right images. It was pretty horrible.
>

Could that be the convergence setting?
Something I found when googling. (Corrected for proper spelling.)

Its function is something all racers already use in a round about way.
Convergence changes how far ahead of your car the precise focal point is.
We are taught to focus 'down the road' when racing, this setting matches 
the 3D focal point with the one you use as a driver.
Ideally everyone uses a little bit different focal point, this allows it 
to be made comfortable/less eye strain.
If these settings are what is causing your doubling, here is how.
With convergence set wayyyy down field and parallax set high, the point 
where the image is perfect will be stuff in the distance near centre screen.
The cost is, anything up close will be doubled to a degree, made more 
noticeable in cockpit view with wheel/hands/gauges/door pillars all very 
close.

In Elite the cockpit is close and it shows up in 3D very well, now. The 
other objects are generally miles away so should have little 
stereoscopic effect.
I've just thought of an exception that I did not check. Being in a 
planets ring system. Must do that sometime soon.


>> That is not going to stop me buying an Oculus Rift when the commercial
>> version is available, though.
>
> Definitely, although for the game I am most interested in there is a
> huge debate in the forums about whether triple monitors or the rift is
> better. I would be worried I bought the rift, tried to get used to it
> and eventually discovered that trips were still better.
>

Compared to the cost of 3 monitors the rift is cheap and you could 
always sell it on, in ebay if it did not suit.
Question: Would the monitors need to be matched?

In the Elite forums. Most of the people who have bought the DK1/2 rave 
about it. And say that they would not go back to using a flat screen 
even though the resolution is noway near as good.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 05.03.2015 um 15:30 schrieb Stephen:

> In the Elite forums. Most of the people who have bought the DK1/2 rave
> about it. And say that they would not go back to using a flat screen
> even though the resolution is noway near as good.

I partially disagree on that one: Occasionally I want to marvel at sharp 
clear stars, and then it's necessarily back th the flat screen for a change.

But give the DK2 away? No way! (Well, not before I get hold of the 
consumer edition, that is ;))

Post a reply to this message

> Could that be the convergence setting?
> Something I found when googling. (Corrected for proper spelling.)

Yes, I probably need to spend more time and have a play about with the 
settings.

> Compared to the cost of 3 monitors the rift is cheap

I picked up 2 of my 3 monitors for £25 each on ebay :-) In all honesty 
it was best £50 I ever spent in terms of adding to the realism, 
immersion and spatial awareness in games.

> and you could
> always sell it on, in ebay if it did not suit.
> Question: Would the monitors need to be matched?

Mine are 22" Samsungs with the same resolution, but they are all 
different models, it's just whatever came up on ebay locally at the time.

> In the Elite forums. Most of the people who have bought the DK1/2 rave
> about it. And say that they would not go back to using a flat screen
> even though the resolution is noway near as good.

Indeed, most in the iRacing forums rave about it too, but there are a 
not-insignificant number of people who went back to using screens. There 
are several reasons, not being able to read the on-screen text clearly 
enough (without making it take up 1/3 screen), not being able to make 
out small details in the distance as well (especially in mirrors), and 
not being able to see the real world (eg to press buttons or type). 
Personally I don't see those as much of a problem though, not if you are 
able to look over your shoulder and see your opponent alongside you :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 05/03/2015 15:02, clipka wrote:
> Am 05.03.2015 um 15:30 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> In the Elite forums. Most of the people who have bought the DK1/2 rave
>> about it. And say that they would not go back to using a flat screen
>> even though the resolution is noway near as good.
>
> I partially disagree on that one: Occasionally I want to marvel at sharp
> clear stars, and then it's necessarily back th the flat screen for a
> change.
>

But you are not whinging or asking for a refund. So you are not a true 
Elitist. <g>


> But give the DK2 away? No way! (Well, not before I get hold of the
> consumer edition, that is ;))
>

The crumbs from your table, Mrs. Dives?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/03/2015 15:36, scott wrote:
>> Could that be the convergence setting?
>> Something I found when googling. (Corrected for proper spelling.)
>
> Yes, I probably need to spend more time and have a play about with the
> settings.
>

I was playing with mine today. The Nvidia card (GTX 970) has an inbuilt 
3D laser sight and it seems to change its depth depending on what it is 
pointed at. The further away the target is the deeper into the screen it is.


>> Compared to the cost of 3 monitors the rift is cheap
>

Wait a bit and you will be able to pick up a DK2 cheep.
Listings for DK1
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_fromfsb=0&_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=oculus+rift+dk1&_sop=2

There is one on there for a tenner.

> I picked up 2 of my 3 monitors for £25 each on ebay :-) In all honesty
> it was best £50 I ever spent in terms of adding to the realism,
> immersion and spatial awareness in games.
>

That is a good bargain.

>> and you could
>> always sell it on, in ebay if it did not suit.
>> Question: Would the monitors need to be matched?
>
> Mine are 22" Samsungs with the same resolution, but they are all
> different models, it's just whatever came up on ebay locally at the time.
>

Matched for size and manufacturer. :-D

>> In the Elite forums. Most of the people who have bought the DK1/2 rave
>> about it. And say that they would not go back to using a flat screen
>> even though the resolution is noway near as good.
>
> Indeed, most in the iRacing forums rave about it too, but there are a
> not-insignificant number of people who went back to using screens. There
> are several reasons, not being able to read the on-screen text clearly
> enough (without making it take up 1/3 screen), not being able to make
> out small details in the distance as well (especially in mirrors), and
> not being able to see the real world (eg to press buttons or type).
> Personally I don't see those as much of a problem though, not if you are
> able to look over your shoulder and see your opponent alongside you :-)
>

I may have mentioned that a couple of years ago I did a contract at 
Mercedes HPP. I never noticed a keyboard in any of the F1 cars ;-)

I've been trying to get VoiceAttack to work but M$ voice recognition is 
racist and says it doesn't recognise Glaswegians. "Glass them" does not 
deploy the hardpoints the way it should. :-)



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> I was playing with mine today. The Nvidia card (GTX 970) has an inbuilt
> 3D laser sight and it seems to change its depth depending on what it is
> pointed at. The further away the target is the deeper into the screen it
> is.

I was thinking of the 970 as a good upgrade for me (650 currently), my 
PSU might disagree though. Gigabyte do one with 3x displayports which 
would work if I ever upgraded to 3x gsync monitors. I wonder how much 
GPU umph the rift needs compared to monitors?

> Wait a bit and you will be able to pick up a DK2 cheep.

That's a good idea.

> Matched for size and manufacturer. :-D

The bezels are annoyingly different though (one has a big thick 
transparent plastic bit around it), I was thinking I might take them off 
somehow, but again one of them doesn't have VESA mounts on the back so 
it would be a bit of a project. IIRC for the nVidia surround to work 
they need to be the same resolution and refresh rate, but you can use a 
program called softth if you want to use mismatched monitors.

> I may have mentioned that a couple of years ago I did a contract at
> Mercedes HPP. I never noticed a keyboard in any of the F1 cars ;-)

Yes that it pretty much how the flame wars start on the iRacing forums.

> I've been trying to get VoiceAttack to work but M$ voice recognition is
> racist and says it doesn't recognise Glaswegians. "Glass them" does not
> deploy the hardpoints the way it should. :-)

:-) The best voice recognition I've seen is on my phone, it seems like 
it is possible to use the Google speech-to-text API but doesn't look 
officially supported and you need to hack about with API keys etc.

Post a reply to this message

James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> On 03/02/2015 02:06 PM, Stephen wrote:
> > I can???t find the original post but this might be of interest.
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31049807

> http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/1/8127445/htc-vive-valve-vr-headset

> the assimilation has already begun

I wish that Oculus Rift would finally be published...

Btw, 90 FPS seems like a rather odd choice.

With many modern games (assuming they will start supporting the headset)
it may be difficult to achieve that framerate even for a quite modern PC.
Most likely the framerate will drop to 45 FPS... which is admittedly a
bit better than 30 FPS (which is so prevalent on consoles), but perhaps
still not as good as your good old 60 FPS.

Unless they implement g-sync in the headset, which would be great.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> There 
> are several reasons, not being able to read the on-screen text clearly 
> enough (without making it take up 1/3 screen)

Are we talking about the development kit 2 here? You mean that even
with 1080 scanlines the details are still too small for the resolution?

(Well, I suppose the OR can't show the exact same detail than a monitor
would, when played normally, the "camera" will have an angle of 80-90
degrees, while with the OR it's probably closer to 180 degrees, which
means that there's effectively less pixels for the same area of the
view...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message