79 réponses à ce sujet

[Packa]

3D right now is just an optical illusion that I need to wear a second pair of annoying glasses to make work. Even if the glasses are designed to not be bothersome, adding a extra set increases the weight sitting on my face and is noticeable. Even when the good ol' eye doctor changes my lenses to a heavy/lighter lens i notice it, but get used to it. I wont be wearing the 3d lens / glasses all the time, just when i need to, so i wont get used to them anytime soon, if at all. you prolly wont understand this unless you've worn glasses your whole life when the other option is not being able to see a thing.



And then, its just a optical illusion. It makes my eye sore after just a little while (Typically pain is a bad thing!)



Now, if 3D meant no glasses, and 3d objects were presented in the real world (like holograms in mass effect, such as the keyboards on the Normandy and else where) or they we're like holograms in Star Trek (solid forms you can interactive), or even the holograms in Ironman where he designs the suit in his garage; I would like that.



As it is now, your paying for an Eye trick made popular by the terrible terrible movie called avatar that i walked out of the cinema within 30 mins of it starting. If i want Eye tricks ill go see a magician.



Now, if its included at no extra cost and isn't forced down my throat then sure, maybe it will draw some of those misguided avatar fans to the game so they can be redeemed by real characters and a real story, then I'll give a "meh" and move on.



If I'm forced to pay extra for a feature that you need to upgrade your hardware for to meet certain standards when I don't even want to use it, then yeah, I wont buy it. I'll wait for the next steam sale. Age of Conan had DirectX 10 before it was common and it was fully optional. If you didn't want to sue it or couldn't run it on your machine, you weren't impacted.

[TomY90]

i currently do not care because no way is the technology ready yet for mass market simply because of how much it costs, the requirement of glasses and having to be dead on to the TV.



If they solved all of this I would be much more willing to have 3D technology but I would rather have amazing graphics etc rather than 3D

[SalsaDMA]

Packa wrote...

3D right now is just an optical illusion that I need to wear a second pair of annoying glasses to make work. Even if the glasses are designed to not be bothersome, adding a extra set increases the weight sitting on my face and is noticeable. Even when the good ol' eye doctor changes my lenses to a heavy/lighter lens i notice it, but get used to it. I wont be wearing the 3d lens / glasses all the time, just when i need to, so i wont get used to them anytime soon, if at all. you prolly wont understand this unless you've worn glasses your whole life when the other option is not being able to see a thing.

I use glasses from time to time when I get tired of having contact lenses in. I don't really notice the weigth of the 3dvision glasses, unless I keep the USB cord plugged in to charge the batteries in them. Then I notice the weigth of the cable. The glasses themselves are not really noticable for me.

And then, its just a optical illusion. It makes my eye sore after just a little while (Typically pain is a bad thing!)

Actually anything you see is an optical illusion. light beams gets bungled around and focused on the inner of your eye, and your mind then interpret the result of these light beams dancing on your eyes inner cinema. Optical illusions that strain the eyes are stuff where you need your eye to focus in a specific way. This isn't the case with the 3dvision glasses as they just 'fool' your eye by only letting beams showing the adjusted image into your eye. There's no moe exercise of the eyeinvolved than when wathcing stuff normally.
Where people usually go wong in this regard, is if they set the sliders for depth wrong, so what the eye sees is too impropable for the mind to accept, in which case the eye tries to compensate for 2 different sources (what it sees and what the brain tells it should be proper).

Now, if 3D meant no glasses, and 3d objects were presented in the real world (like holograms in mass effect, such as the keyboards on the Normandy and else where) or they we're like holograms in Star Trek (solid forms you can interactive), or even the holograms in Ironman where he designs the suit in his garage; I would like that.

You cannot get the same effect of perception, ever, from holograms as by 'depth perception fooling' which is basicly what 3dvision is all about. Holograms are limited by are rather small quantity called space in front of you while playing. You cannot display stuff 'inside' the screen, but merely make objects  in front of you. With perception fooling like 3dvision, you can vitually turn the screen into a window into another world. To give just one example: A hologram you could use to display a smal toy ca in front of you. With perception fooling you can display the car, several hundred meters ahead, multiple other objects as well along that distance and keep things moving in a way that your mind can readily accept.
Unless you want to limit yourself to extremely small areasof gaming, holograms are not suitd at all for gaming. Beat'em'ups ala Streetfighter is prob the best you can do in that regard, but forget about racing games, fps/3rd-ps, sims and so on.

As it is now, your paying for an Eye trick made popular by the terrible terrible movie called avatar that i walked out of the cinema within 30 mins of it starting. If i want Eye tricks ill go see a magician.

Nie of you to be judgemental of an entire technology because of an object that used a similar yet different technology. First of all, peceptin fooling has nothing to do with wether or not avatar was a good or bad movie. Avatars script has something to do with that. Your claim is like a guy saying: "Yeah, I don't like cars. I tried riding over a bumpy field in an old Ford-T, and I didn't like that experience. So cars suck, and if I want to go somewhere I much prefer a horse, cause cars are a stupid gimmick."

Now, if its included at no extra cost and isn't forced down my throat then sure, maybe it will draw some of those misguided avatar fans to the game so they can be redeemed by real characters and a real story, then I'll give a "meh" and move on.

If you had bothered actually understanding what 3dvision was about, you'd have known by now that the game engines already support it. What is needed to turn it from a 'ok' effect into an 'awesome' effect are really minor. Stuff like giving people options to turn off specific visual effects, and ofc them not tying OoI (Objects of Interest) to Lens Flare effect (which is an odd decision from an outsiders point of view to start with)

If I'm forced to pay extra for a feature that you need to upgrade your hardware for to meet certain standards when I don't even want to use it, then yeah, I wont buy it. I'll wait for the next steam sale. Age of Conan had DirectX 10 before it was common and it was fully optional. If you didn't want to sue it or couldn't run it on your machine, you weren't impacted.

Anyone claiming making a gaming title '3d ready' incurs an extra charge on the title have no understanding of the technology behind it.

[SalsaDMA]

TomY90 wrote...

i currently do not care because no way is the technology ready yet for mass market simply because of how much it costs, the requirement of glasses and having to be dead on to the TV.

If they solved all of this I would be much more willing to have 3D technology but I would rather have amazing graphics etc rather than 3D

The price is oft exagerated by peoplethat don't even want to bother examining it.

The 3dvision kit by itself is cheaper than a new gfx card. And brings a substantial biggervisual effect than 'just making my pixels move slightly faster in a region where I can't even detect the difference with the human eye anyway' which seems to be the case of comparisons between gfx cards these days.

I can get it no trub while working as a postman. I wouldn't claim my salary is in the high end, or making me rich, so if I can get it without feeling impoverished by it, claiming it is too expensive is from my point of view just people being stubborn about their price claim out of principle, rather than out of facts.

[Packa]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I use glasses from time to time when I get tired of having contact lenses in. I don't really notice the weigth of the 3dvision glasses, unless I keep the USB cord plugged in to charge the batteries in them. Then I notice the weigth of the cable. The glasses themselves are not really noticable for me.

Im so happy for you. For me, they are. I used to have a little pair of clip-on sun glasses that had the same weight as a few pennies. Im assuming your 3Dvision glasses weigh atleast the same as those, but now that you mention batteries I know they will be a bit heavier.

Actually anything you see is an optical illusion. light beams gets bungled around and focused on the inner of your eye, and your mind then interpret the result of these light beams dancing on your eyes inner cinema. Optical illusions that strain the eyes are stuff where you need your eye to focus in a specific way. This isn't the case with the 3dvision glasses as they just 'fool' your eye by only letting beams showing the adjusted image into your eye. There's no moe exercise of the eyeinvolved than when wathcing stuff normally.
Where people usually go wong in this regard, is if they set the sliders for depth wrong, so what the eye sees is too impropable for the mind to accept, in which case the eye tries to compensate for 2 different sources (what it sees and what the brain tells it should be proper).

I dont need a lecture on the physics and properties of Light and how our eye percieves it. Sure, the whole idea of 3D vision right now may be no more an optical illusion than color is, but people still get head aches from it. For some it doesnt even work, as I read here. Im sure proper settup is important, but I'm also sure some people will still get head aches, like myself.

You cannot get the same effect of perception, ever, from holograms as by 'depth perception fooling' which is basicly what 3dvision is all about. Holograms are limited by are rather small quantity called space in front of you while playing. You cannot display stuff 'inside' the screen, but merely make objects  in front of you. With perception fooling like 3dvision, you can vitually turn the screen into a window into another world. To give just one example: A hologram you could use to display a smal toy ca in front of you. With perception fooling you can display the car, several hundred meters ahead, multiple other objects as well along that distance and keep things moving in a way that your mind can readily accept.
Unless you want to limit yourself to extremely small areasof gaming, holograms are not suitd at all for gaming. Beat'em'ups ala Streetfighter is prob the best you can do in that regard, but forget about racing games, fps/3rd-ps, sims and so on.

holograms not suited for gaming? I gave several examples of holograms. while the Mass Effect and Ironman examples may be space-limited like you say, the star trek example was not. you talk about your 3D vision as a window into another world. How about a door? Step through and take on the role of the Character.

Perhaps a conbination of the two would work best for the ME and Ironman examples, atleast for gaming. The key for holograms, however, is the removal of glasses.

I'd also be happy with virtual reality.

Nie of you to be judgemental of an entire technology because of an object that used a similar yet different technology. First of all, peceptin fooling has nothing to do with wether or not avatar was a good or bad movie. Avatars script has something to do with that. Your claim is like a guy saying: "Yeah, I don't like cars. I tried riding over a bumpy field in an old Ford-T, and I didn't like that experience. So cars suck, and if I want to go somewhere I much prefer a horse, cause cars are a stupid gimmick."

I'll concede that one to you.

If you had bothered actually understanding what 3dvision was about, you'd have known by now that the game engines already support it. What is needed to turn it from a 'ok' effect into an 'awesome' effect are really minor. Stuff like giving people options to turn off specific visual effects, and ofc them not tying OoI (Objects of Interest) to Lens Flare effect (which is an odd decision from an outsiders point of view to start with)

I'm sorry if my ignorance botherd you, but I dont really care to sit here all day researching computer tech as it comes out. Perhaps you like to, or you have a personal interest in it. I couldnt care though.

Now, if it really is already implemented and only needed the tiniest changes to make it work, then im fine for another selling point for a bioware game. The more income they have the more they can do.

Anyone claiming making a gaming title '3d ready' incurs an extra charge on the title have no understanding of the technology behind it.

I'm glad we agree here.