PDA

View Full Version : Support for stereoscopic 3D?



Risingred
9th Mar 2011, 07:34
I think I read forever ago that the team had no plans for specifically supporting stereoscopic 3D in DXHR, which is fine. But that was a while ago!

I read MyImmortal's thread here (http://http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=114671), and it re-ignited my curiosity.
It states in the quoted article that there will be eyefinity support (an AMD-exclusive thing where you can play the game across multiple monitors). Since we're asking about bonus features, is there any chance of getting an update as to if stereoscopic 3D (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-main.html) will be supported in any way?

Most games, it will work regardless of official patches or whatever, but it wouldn't hurt to hear something about it. I think a game like Deus Ex would be fantastic in 3D.

As it is a luxury for game developers, however, I wouldn't hold a grudge if the answer was "no support". I'm sure they have more than enough stuff on their plate to deal with before launch.

xAcerbusx
9th Mar 2011, 07:38
Ugh. I hope not.

3D is a gimmick. I'd be shocked and amazed if it was still being talked about in five years. No reason to make the Deus Ex series enter into that already-dated conversation.

Risingred
9th Mar 2011, 07:39
Ugh. I hope not.

3D is a gimmick. I'd be shocked and amazed if it was still being talked about in five years. No reason to make the Deus Ex series enter into that already-dated conversation.

I forgot my disclaimer, so I guess I can't be offended by your off-topicness.
I learned a very long time ago to not even bother trying to argue the benefits of playing in stereo.

NKD
9th Mar 2011, 08:13
Ugh. I hope not.

3D is a gimmick. I'd be shocked and amazed if it was still being talked about in five years. No reason to make the Deus Ex series enter into that already-dated conversation.

What do you care? It's not like its mandatory.

Jerion
9th Mar 2011, 08:16
What do you care? It's not like its mandatory.

Presumably because it takes time out of the allotted schedule to implement little things like this, as the team is working with a proprietary engine, not something licensed like Unreal. Time that could be used elsewhere on more central aspects of the game and/or it's engine.

I have neither a 3D TV nor a 120hz-capable display, I personally don't care about it in games one bit.

jtr7
9th Mar 2011, 08:44
Yeah, we care because we aren't interested in such trivial distractions for the team. Money doesn't grow on trees, so let the team focus on building a game and getting it as close to never needing a patch as possible, because while the player wouldn't need the tech to play, it would be mandatory for the devs to own it, work with it, implement it, and make sure it doesn't cause glitches in other things, and...money doesn't grow on trees, and they need to recoup the millions they've spent of other people's money before they can make a profit. Even though the tech isn't mandatory to the players, we all would end up paying for it. It's utterly unimportant to the game.

ZakKa89
9th Mar 2011, 09:32
I agree with above poster. If they want to add 3d, let it be after the release please.

NKD
9th Mar 2011, 10:22
Yeah, we care because we aren't interested in such trivial distractions for the team. Money doesn't grow on trees, so let the team focus on building a game and getting it as close to never needing a patch as possible, because while the player wouldn't need the tech to play, it would be mandatory for the devs to own it, work with it, implement it, and make sure it doesn't cause glitches in other things, and...money doesn't grow on trees, and they need to recoup the millions they've spent of other people's money before they can make a profit. Even though the tech isn't mandatory to the players, we all would end up paying for it. It's utterly unimportant to the game.

It's not really as big a deal as you make it out to be. In fact, there are many games that work fine in Nvidia 3D despite having zero developer consideration for the feature. It's not a huge investment of time and manpower and does not require consideration of the feature from the ground up. It's firing the game up on a test machine with Nvidia 3D capable hardware and fixing a few glitches. No more work than Eyefinity or Nvidia Surround, which is apparently supported despite also being utterly unimportant to the game.

Shralla
9th Mar 2011, 10:23
You guys know that 3D in video games isn't that hard to achieve, right?

Angel-A
9th Mar 2011, 22:17
I had the impression 3D support was reverse compatible. As NKD said, it can work with things not specifically made for it. :scratch:
At any rate... 3D... Would be beautiful...

Risingred
10th Mar 2011, 02:39
Presumably because it takes time out of the allotted schedule to implement little things like this, as the team is working with a proprietary engine, not something licensed like Unreal. Time that could be used elsewhere on more central aspects of the game and/or it's engine.

I have neither a 3D TV nor a 120hz-capable display, I personally don't care about it in games one bit.

I would appreciate if you actually read my post before responding to the thread.
I'm not asking them to take time out of the schedule. I'm just asking if there's any (official) support for it.

Every time I say "3d" in a forum, every sanctimonious old-schooler, or whatever label makes you feel the most special and cool, crawls out from under their rock to make a comment. Your comment, and all the others, are completely off-topic.

Again, I'm only asking if there's any update as to if there will be support in any official capacity in the game, or even if they've tried it during development just for kicks. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking them to bend over backwards to implement something that the majority of people won't be able to use. If the original post had actually been read, this wouldn't have to be said.



Yeah, we care because we aren't interested in such trivial distractions for the team. Money doesn't grow on trees, so let the team focus on building a game and getting it as close to never needing a patch as possible, because while the player wouldn't need the tech to play, it would be mandatory for the devs to own it, work with it, implement it, and make sure it doesn't cause glitches in other things, and...money doesn't grow on trees, and they need to recoup the millions they've spent of other people's money before they can make a profit. Even though the tech isn't mandatory to the players, we all would end up paying for it. It's utterly unimportant to the game.


Another one. Go back and read the last two lines of the original post in this thread.
And the, go through your post and replace any context of "3d" to "this forum". Hey, we could cut out all kinds of stuff.
Maybe we should cut out augmentations because I don't care about them. I play for the story. We should cut out gunplay, too, because why should I have to pay for your enjoyment?
At least try to find some semblance of a logical argument, please.

I'm so sick and tired of all the random hostility in the gaming community. Crappiest community on the planet.

Jerion
10th Mar 2011, 14:23
Is there a particular reason you felt the need to attack me specifically? All I did was help speculatively satisfy one poster's curiosity. Personally I don't give a crap about 3D tech one way or the other, So don't get righteous with me about that.

If you'd like an official answer, only Coyotegrey is authorized to give you one. The rest of us don't know or can't tell you. I probably should have made that clear and I apologize for not doing so.

ZakKa89
10th Mar 2011, 15:18
Well risingred this IS a discussion forum so every topic/question posted/ask about will be discussed. If you want to avoid people stating their opnions I suggest you try asking the team directly (twitter/email). Another option is to PM coyotegrey, he is the community manager.

And the only hostility I see in this thread is yours ;p

Take a chill pill, because nobody is attacking you.

AlexOfSpades
10th Mar 2011, 15:42
Is there a particular reason you felt the need to attack me specifically? All I did was help speculatively satisfy one poster's curiosity. Personally I don't give a crap about 3D tech one way or the other, So don't get righteous with me about that.

If you'd like an official answer, only Coyotegrey is authorized to give you one. The rest of us don't know or can't tell you. I probably should have made that clear and I apologize for not doing so.

Besides being a most special and cool sanctimonious old-schooler that lives under a rock, you're also a very patient man.

I admire you

puzl
10th Mar 2011, 15:53
I'm so sick and tired of all the random hostility in the gaming community. Crappiest community on the planet.

Christ dude, man up already. The only one being hostile to posters in here is you.

3D support hasn't been announced and individual users in here discussing why they don't like it isn't "off-topic" in the slightest. I've seen plenty of threads at this forum get derailed, but this one certainly doesn't count as one of them. If you can't take criticism and accept that some users don't like a feature you enjoy, then the internet is not for you.

Dead-Eye
10th Mar 2011, 16:34
Well, this thread started off poorly... I wonder if it will only get worse?

At any rate, I don't know because I don't have a 120+mhz monitor so I can't say for sure, but I would imagine it will just work out of the box. As I understand it, Nivida and AMD/ATI's 3D vision is all driver side. The game doesn't need any special coding because the driver will alter the rendering engine in the game and turn the game 3d for you.

Sort of like how Deus Ex doesn't have anti-aliasing. But you can go into the Nvidia control panel and force it to render anti-aliasing anyways.

Tjeerd84
10th Mar 2011, 17:53
There are a lot of people in fora who dont want 3D. I also see that those people obviously don't own any 3D equipment... Some common anti-3d arguments are: It's a gimmick, it wont last for more then x years, it's expensive to implement and support, I don't have the 120Hz screen.

'It's a gimmick'
Gimmick is just a popular word to make something look less important then it is. Everybody who experienced 3D gaming the way it's meant to be, will say it looks good and it adds to immersion and the overall gaming experience.
Every feature is some sort of a gimmick, so AA should not be implemented too? Because 'my' videocard is not good enough to even turn it on?

'It wont last for more then x years'
Open your eyes and understand that 3D wont leave. It will only evolve until we have projectors that let us see everything we want in a 3D holograph.

'It's expensive to implement and support'
The only thing the developers need to support is the possibility for the game-engine to move the game-camera independent of the players position. 3D Vision can simply use that to simulate 3D. Because this game is already 3D, but projected on our 2D screens, it's very easy and cheap to implement. (google 'how does 3D work' if you don't understand this)

'I dont have the 120Hz screen'
Is the same as to say 'I don't have the GTX5xx or HD5/6xxx so I dont like support for dx11. Imagine a person who is born deaf. He would say 'I dont want that Deus Ex gets sound effects, because I can't hear it'.

We all have our own tastes, but I just can't stand people making up arguments to have an excuse for their stupidity. A lot of things can be adjusted or turned off in settings: V-Sync, Volume, Brightness, 3D, etc. No problem if you don't want 3D, just don't try to impose your taste on other people. If you don't have the brains or the money to even talk about 3D tech from first hand impressions, then don't act like you know all about it.

Kodaemon
10th Mar 2011, 18:11
Open your eyes and understand that 3D wont leave. It will only evolve until we have projectors that let us see everything we want in a 3D holograph.

I'll wait for the holographs, then. Until then, the headaches, eye strain and colour loss aren't worth it.

ArcR
10th Mar 2011, 18:26
Kodaemon: they are going to re-release solid state society in 3d. Any interest?

I'm looking forward to it.

Kodaemon
10th Mar 2011, 18:33
Nope. GitS 2.0 was a bad enough rehash, I don't need Solid State Society with added eyestrain now.

ArcR
10th Mar 2011, 18:36
CG vs 3D there. I enjoyed 2.0. Well we are both dreading the live action. :(

Kodaemon
10th Mar 2011, 18:43
I know, I was just saying I view both 2.0 and the 3d S^3 as pointless.

Now, the new Evangelion movies, that's how you do an anime rehash :P

Arksun
10th Mar 2011, 19:10
I'll wait for the holographs, then. Until then, the headaches, eye strain and colour loss aren't worth it.

Nonsense. 3D in a good cinema is stunning. My local town cinema is RealD XLS, which means it uses the very latest Sony digital projector 4K res, thats able to project left and right images simultaneously onto the screen (no flicking 120 times a second which also reduces eyestrain and increase luminance). I also think those that aren't able to really see the depth going into the screen have to accept that everyones different and not all humans are able to percieve this sense of depth.

I remember going to see Avatar and I think I spent the first 10 minutes with my jaw on the floor I was soo gobsmacked by the difference it made. There was one particular shot in the end battle where our viewpoint is inside one of the flying crafts and the glass windows of the craft felt soo real like I could just reach out and touch them, simply amazing.

What I'm curious about is just how much additional processing power is required to draw 2 images instead of one for consoles/graphics cards. Do all the polygons and light sources have to be rendered twice over, thuse requiring twice as much power for same frame rate?, or can they be calculated once and its a seperate point of view issue thats less additional power?.

I do think 3D TV has a long LONG way to go though, all the ones I've seen so far have been pretty rubbish. Current LCD/LED isn't really up to the job imho, its gonna take a step up to full OLED production.

Tjeerd84
10th Mar 2011, 22:16
I'll wait for the holographs, then. Until then, the headaches, eye strain and colour loss aren't worth it.

If you get headaches and eyestrain, thats your physical problem. The colour loss is something technical. Just like the crosstalk and today's 3d glasses. There are prototypes at the moment, where you don't need glasses and there is no crosstalk and colour change. The first car was not the porsche 911...

I feel sorry for all the people who cannot enjoy 3D (even in real life), just don't start ranting at 3D because of that. For me, a person with good perception, 3D is the next best thing since colours were introduced to television.


What I'm curious about is just how much additional processing power is required to draw 2 images instead of one for consoles/graphics cards. Do all the polygons and light sources have to be rendered twice over, thuse requiring twice as much power for same frame rate?, or can they be calculated once and its a seperate point of view issue thats less additional power?.

To create a 3D picture from a 3D engine, you will lose half of the FPS in theory. Because of the little difference in the left and right 3D image, some more advanced 3D software can make this proces more efficiƫnt, but still you will lose a lot of your initial FPS in 3D mode.

neilthecellist
10th Mar 2011, 23:50
If you get headaches and eyestrain, thats your physical problem.
This.


I feel sorry for all the people who cannot enjoy 3D (even in real life), just don't start ranting at 3D because of that.
This. 3D gaming and IMAX 3D alike are amazing experiences.


To create a 3D picture from a 3D engine, you will lose half of the FPS in theory.
Not exactly. 3D isn't done by doubling the amount of graphics power nor video memory. Run EVGA Precision the next time you run a game and compare your 2D and 3D load. You should only have a 30-40% marginal increase. And by the same token, 30-40% reduction in framerate.

All in all, I agree with the OP, actually. Even if the developers don't officially support 3D for the game, you can no doubtedly presume Nvidia to hop on board with a driver release/update to support 3D for DX: HR.

Besides, who WOULDN'T want to immerse themselves even more in an already immersive-based cyberpunk sci-fi futuristic role-playing masterpiece game like Deus Ex?

"All those purists out there..." ;)

K^2
11th Mar 2011, 00:21
Presumably because it takes time out of the allotted schedule to implement little things like this, as the team is working with a proprietary engine, not something licensed like Unreal. Time that could be used elsewhere on more central aspects of the game and/or it's engine.
Nah. I've written some 3D software for the university's 3D room. A month to develop an application to display data from MRI, and of that I spent about a day mid-development to add 3D support.

It's very simple with modern hardware. You ask for 4 buffers instead of 2, and you alternate between left and right back-buffer every other pass. Then you can either swap back and front buffers on each frame one eye at a time, or every other frame for both eyes at once.

All you end up having to do is add a bit of code keeping track of which eye you are rendering for right now, and adjusting the view matrix accordingly. Basically, it's a small change to the camera code. Then you add a check box and a slider into the options menu to enable/control stereo effect. And that's it.


I know that a lot of people still question the utility of 3D in games, but if you have stereo equipment, it is more fun. And when it takes that little from developers to make it work, I really don't see a reason not to support it.

That said, there is some software that can let you play DirectX games with stereo 3D even if the game does not natively support it, but when this is built into the game, it works much better.

jtr7
11th Mar 2011, 02:09
There are no effects, physics, or animations that would make 3D viewing jarring or uncomfortable or expose the flatness of some things for lack of 3D consideration?

Tjeerd84
11th Mar 2011, 09:12
Not exactly. 3D isn't done by doubling the amount of graphics power nor video memory. Run EVGA Precision the next time you run a game and compare your 2D and 3D load. You should only have a 30-40% marginal increase. And by the same token, 30-40% reduction in framerate.

I know we agree with eachother, but if you read my previous post well, you will see that I referred to the advanced software as well. In theory 3D would really cut your fps in half. In real life it wont anymore, since there is advanced software. I don't know the numbers, but around 40% fps drop seems reasonable to me. ;)

neilthecellist
11th Mar 2011, 23:13
Which advanced software were you referring to? I'd like to try it out.

K^2
12th Mar 2011, 23:50
There are no effects, physics, or animations that would make 3D viewing jarring or uncomfortable or expose the flatness of some things for lack of 3D consideration?
Not really. Even billboarded particles look fine in stereoscopic 3D if you have sufficiently high particle numbers for the FX. If it looks fine when you move from one viewing angle to another, it will look fine in stereoscopic 3D. Since moving is kind of a prerequisite for an FPS, you basically get a 3D-ready environment from the start.

In some games, HUD may be an issue, but HR is designed around a virtual 3D HUD from the start, as far as I can tell, so that shouldn't be a problem either. They might have to adjust depths of a few elements, of course.

Not exactly. 3D isn't done by doubling the amount of graphics power nor video memory.
You do exactly double the number of fill operations and shader calls. Video memory usage is mostly textures, though, so yeah, that barely increases.

daklog
13th Mar 2011, 00:29
from what ive seen so far, this game already has framerate issues, 3d would amplify those issues and result in a chuggy, unfluid experience

neilthecellist
13th Mar 2011, 02:45
You do exactly double the number of fill operations and shader calls. Video memory usage is mostly textures, though, so yeah, that barely increases.
True.


from what ive seen so far, this game already has framerate issues, 3d would amplify those issues and result in a chuggy, unfluid experience
Where have you seen this? The 360 demo that got leaked (has two parts on Youtube) had framerate issues, sure, like console games sometimes do, but the ATI Eyefinity demo for DX:HR didn't appear to have any framerate lag at all, AND they were running on highest details + DirectX 11 + Eyefinity mode (5760 x 1080 resolution).

daklog
13th Mar 2011, 05:05
Thanks for making me aware of the eyefinity demo, as any new footage I see of this game is a gift. My statement was actually in reference to consoles, namely the PS3 as it is the format I will be purchasing on (and that 360 doesn't support 3d). As for PC's, framerate issues can't be really stated as a problem because it is more an issue with your system not being powerful enough to render the scene. I fully hope for stereoscopic 3d support, however i do not wish for the development team to spend resources on trying to implement 3d until the game is as great as it possibly can be.


If you dont mind, can you link me to the eyefinity demo? The longest video I can find on youtube is nearly 10 minutes long but it is filled with framerate issues yet again (although at such a large resolution, it is difficult to begrudge the game for having a few hitches in framerate)