Goblin Squad Member
|
I built my computer with Nvidia 3Dvision in mind, and finally have gotten around to purchasing it. It adds a lot to games, but very few will properly render. Some games look great, but then the lighting and shadows render differently for each eye, or you have overlapping graphics rendering in a conflicting way, such as a background at screen depth, and models 'inside' the screen.
I ask that you refrain from dumping too much visual information onto the UI, as that is where the majority of 3D issues arise. As much information as possible should be rendered in the 3D environment. Things like name tags, damage numbers, or brackets around a character should be rendered around the center of that character, not around their projection on the UI.
Also make sure light sources are static to the world, and not at all based on camera position. Shadows are the largest form of incompatibility, turning off shadows is the most common fix to 3D problems. The sun should be a light source that circles the game terrain
Getting on the short list (<50) of '3D vision ready' games would probably help game sales. I know there are more people like me trying to get the full effect of their 3d setups.
I ask that you refrain from dumping too much visual information onto the UI, as that is where the majority of 3D issues arise. As much information as possible should be rendered in the 3D environment. Things like name tags, damage numbers, or brackets around a character should be rendered around the center of that character, not around their projection on the UI.
This the main problem that i have with 3D vision as well.
But with all things being equal i tend to use eyefinity(triple monitor) more than 3D, Eyefinity+3D = 5760x1080 3D goodness :)|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would caution against putting too much time into a feature of marginal interest. The very short list itself is a pretty huge giveaway: 3D isn't really something for video games. If it was really something driving sales, developers would bend over backwards to achieve. They are not.
It adds a lot of hurdles on UI design, and you need to model a "real space" much more closely than you'd otherwise do. So it adds significant upfront costs. Getting these costs returned depends on how many players would buy the game for the 3d support (and otherwise NOT buy it).
I for one would not buy a "true 3d" game. Not for that gimmick alone. In fact, probably I would be less likely to buy the game simply because signicant time was wasted on a feature I would never turn on. Glasses on top of other glasses suck bad enough in the cinema, and in fact I visit 2d showings quite often in preference of the 3d showing.
I hope 3D in theaters definitely dies out, as it doesn't really work when you need glasses. I dunno if that problem extends to close-range 3D, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm one of the unfortunately too many people who is nauseated by 3D media, at least all I've sampled so far. I dread the day when 3D is unavoidable.
Same here. I sat through Brave in 3D (what I will do for my nieces...) and was munching Tums about halfway through. Is it because I wear glasses? I know it's not related to motion sickness as I don't suffer from that at all - while a friend who does has absolutely no problems with 3D.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does it seem that some people that don't enjoy 3d want to deny others the experience?
If 3d movies make you feel nauseated, you are probably sitting too close to the screen. You should always make sure that the entire screen is visible through each eye, and sit back as far as possible. This fixes the problem for most that get sick in 3d movies.
Also, if you don't want to deny friends/family the ability to see 3d movies with you, you can buy glasses that only view one image. If prescription glasses are your problem, you can get clip-on lenses. Both cost less than a movie ticket.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Why does it seem that some people that don't enjoy 3d want to deny others the experience?
Because you are personally invested into a that feature, and few others are. In a perfect world, you would get your feature, and those uninterested or unable to enjoy it wouldn't use it.
Unfortunately, "strong" 3d imposes some quite significant challenges in UI design, and makes world programming harder as well. That is not to mention its own set of limitations (like carrying a torch with you). So in order to include it, other features will suffer. Features I and several others care about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I don't mind 3D movies (seen only a few), and that their is an investment into the hardware and software and wanting to use it to it's fullest.
I have to agree with most in that Full 3D support and 3D friendly HUD should be on the back burner for the moment and added later.
As it'll require not only time in the programming it, but in the levels, the models, and anything else that is rendered.
That and there is only a small percentage that have the 3D hardware setup.
Goblin Works has other features and content to work on and adding this is feature creep (and 3D support a nasty sized one),
and no game company wants let feature creep go unchecked, especially under a tight budget and time frame.
Now why did I cover levels, Unity supports well over 10 lights in a scene and they can even be dynamic lights to set the mood for an area, or effect.
I don't think one light can cover an entire dungeon unless you want some horrible shadowing, incorrect lighting or "I can't see because it's too dark" problems.
Even outside for a massive level you can not use one light source so easily, and if it's moving it adds even more difficulty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does it seem that some people that don't enjoy 3d want to deny others the experience?
I've seen no sign that anyone wants that. I'm afraid things are going the other way, and that there may, someday, be no 2D option available.
If 3d movies make you feel nauseated, you are probably sitting too close to the screen. You should always make sure that the entire screen is visible through each eye, and sit back as far as possible. This fixes the problem for most that get sick in 3d movies.
Someone suggested that before I decided to give The Hobbit a shot, in case the technology'd changed at all since Avatar, my last attempt. I sat in the last row and it made no perceptible difference, unless adding a bad headache to the nausea counts as a difference.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There are certain choices made now that dramatically impact how 3d works for the user.
Chiefly listed: Things which might be thought of as UI elements are sometimes rendered as though they were a very short distance in front of the player. When using 3d viewing, those things appear to be pasted to the inside of the monitor.
When the image in question is supposed to be some text floating above a character in the world, or an interaction menu for an object in the world, or anything else that looks like it should be inside the screen rather than on the surface, it doesn't work well for 3d rendering. It's not much more work to consider the consequences for 3d viewers from the beginning, but it is very hard to retrofit a 'surface of the screen' model to a 'around the character' model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does it seem that some people that don't enjoy 3d want to deny others the experience?I expect it boils down to the very natural response of not wanting Goblinworks to spend scarce resources developing features they don't intend to use.
I'm not just talking about here, it is an attitude I see everywhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not just talking about here, it is an attitude I see everywhere.
For me 3D doesnt really add anything. iv been to 3D movies, they dont make my sick or anything.
Honestly 3D doesnt impress me, i give it a "ohh thats neato" rating then move on.
3D is a small market, more so for anything in the home.
For in the game market 3D is a gimmik that instead of spending a rather large amount of money for a very very small percent of users who use it, they can invest that money into other options/features that a much larger part of the player base will use.
Maybe when things are made that properly integrate 3D and just not use it as a gimmik I will change my mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3d is not a big undertaking, why does everyone think it would cost a lot of money? It is only expensive if you want to do what Blizzard did and take full control of 3d in-game(and they failed).
It just requires a different approach to the UI, IMO it sounds easier basing information off of entities, and not having to make projections onto the UI. But it is something that needs to be started now, before major features are implemented in a way that would hurt stereoscopic rendering.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry to say it, but adding 3D is feature creep, and every software company avoids it as much as they can.
That and it puts constraints on what they can do by adding it.
The only way it'll get in period is either it gets in early if it takes little effort (which I doubt it'll be easy) or it gets added later
@DeciusBrutus
Adding 3D still does require programming as you have to interface with it's API, the driver and setup an options mode in the UI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So far only Nvidia and ATI have the 3D hardware out.
Though there was some earlier attempts (refer to certain versions of Voodoo Rush)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My two coppers worth - I have two 1GB Nvidia cards working in SLI fully capable of 3DVision, and my PC is hooked up to my 56" 3D LCD HDTV. That being said, I don't really care if PfO is 3D capable. I likely won't use it anyway, as I'd have to turn the 3D on on the TV, wear the glasses and otherwise not be able to just jump into the game immediately, which is all I want to do - run the client and game.
I have 3d vision on my system and I do use it for some but not all MMO's depending on what I am doing. As far as I can tell however it will work with any game that uses DirectX (haven't tried open GL) even if the game was released before 3DVision came out.
The issue comes when parts of the screen do not have the z axis value set correctly is the major problem I see on that. Some games are better than others at it so I tend to concur that it probably isn't going to cost too much.
Should they put it in, frankly I am quite neutral on the matter. If they can accomodate it easily and it will attract extra customers it may be worth it. In this matter I am sure the dev's have better industry data on the subject than us that can merely speculate so I am willing to leave it up to them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to do programming at the NSA, this is not a feature creep. Its trying to implement a fundamental build concept to the early design so everything will work better.
I got basically the same response when I argued for the 3D vision offered from the Oculus rift in this thread
If we were to combine the requirements for 3dvision and oculus, which is easily accomplished in Unity (and does not hurt people who dont want 3d vision):
Light source that is very far away with consistent shadow rendering
Minimal central GUI Option
Rotating Neck Structure with Option for Camera in eyes for player models
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Light source that is very far away with consistent shadow rendering
For what it's worth, I've noticed some really odd things with lighting and shadows in the games I've played. I've often thought that these would be solved by having the Sun be an actual light source, but I confess I don't know enough about it to speak confidently, and a quick conversation with my coworker buddy who's done modeling and animation as a hobby for a while now didn't help much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I used to do programming at the NSA, this is not a feature creep. Its trying to implement a fundamental build concept to the early design so everything will work better.
I got basically the same response when I argued for the 3D vision offered from the Oculus rift in this thread
If we were to combine the requirements for 3dvision and oculus, which is easily accomplished in Unity (and does not hurt people who dont want 3d vision):
Light source that is very far away with consistent shadow rendering
Minimal central GUI Option
Rotating Neck Structure with Option for Camera in eyes for player models
Adding a feature that is not in the original design document is no matter what and always will be Feature Creep.
Feature creep, creeping featurism or featuritis is the ongoing expansion or addition of new features in a product, such as in computer software.
Extra features go beyond the basic function of the product and so can result in over-complication rather than simple design.
Viewed over a longer time period, extra or unnecessary features seem to creep into the system, beyond the initial goals.
When you get a game engine it's a predefined Black-Box. Mind you Goblin Works may have the Source Code and thus add what they want, but still have to deal with it's methodology and internals and then modify them to support it.
But If they don't have the source code, Unity does not natively support 3D. As I've toyed with the Free Unity for a bit and it's friendly so long as you use what the box gives you.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unity Free works with Oculus if you download the Unity Integration ovr_unity_0.2.1_lib.zip
When i moved objects around, I didnt call it a feature.
And to this lighting thing again, i remember Ryan Dancey saying there will not be true night. So will we have ambient lighting instead of a light source? Or the sun will always be on and static?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we were to combine the requirements for 3dvision and oculus, which is easily accomplished in Unity (and does not hurt people who dont want 3d vision):
Light source that is very far away with consistent shadow rendering
Minimal central GUI Option
Rotating Neck Structure with Option for Camera in eyes for player models
Leveraging new requirements outside the design document is the definition of scope creep. Support for either of these things is solidly outside the design of "minimum viable product" that is the current design goal. On top of that, you're seeking to reshape the basic design (introducing more complexity to the system) to support a future expansive feature that is extremely low demand. Most people are looking at that and saying that it's a poor use of the project's tight resource budget.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does it seem that some people that don't enjoy 3d want to deny others the experience?
Welcome to online gaming forums. Any feature people don't personally want they will argue against even if it has no bearing on their gameplay.
If 3D isn't a flash in the pan then the prices for 3D systems will surely come down within the next few years to a level that 3D systems are commonplace.
Designing things with that in mind might not be a bad idea if that isn't overly expensive / time consuming and doesn't harm the non-3D experience. If it will, then I say just skip it.