Page 1 of 4 1234 Last

Thread: DX:HR and HD3D

DX:HR and HD3D

  1. #1

    DX:HR and HD3D

    We know there will be HD3D support for DX:HR and more games will support it in the future too. I'm planning on buying a new game computer and pre-ordered the DX:HR collector's edition . I already own a 3D Samsung LCD (LE40S750) and will definitely buy a 3D monitor too (S27A950D). I really like 3D in the cinema and on my LCD so far, but I never played games in 3D.

    I was just wondering what other people here think about AMD's HD3D and gaming. You can answer one or more of the following questions or just give your own feedback.

    1) Do you plan to play DX:HR on a 3D monitor?
    2) What's your experience with AMD's HD3D in general?
    3) How do you think the DX experience will change because of 3D?
    4) Do you want to pay today's price (about 500 euro or USD) for this 3D experience?
    5) Do you want to game with the trouble of glasses and driver settings?

    __

    *Moderator Edit/Updates/Info*

    AMD Talks HD3D
    Published on 23rd May 2011 by Ben Hardwidge
    AMD says it's working closely with Eidos to enable native HD3D support in Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...md-talks-hd3d/

  2. #2
    3d means half fps because the game needs to be rendered twice so no thanks.

  3. #3
    It's a trade-off between fps and 3D, but if you have enough fps to start with, it wont be a problem. New SLI and Xfire setups should be able to run any game in 3D or Eyefinity.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,497
    If it's like cinema 3D then no because I don't really fancy the brightness being cut in half.

  5. #5
    O.o
    Seems like someone has money to burn.

    There are plenty of threads within this forum to get an idea on how people who regularly post feel about stereography in general let alone gaming.
    Yes siree, the excitement never ends.

  6. #6
    I notice that the replies only adress the downside of 3D:

    3d means half fps because the game needs to be rendered twice so no thanks.
    3D drivers try to make the process as effective as possible. This means a game with an average of 60 fps, will have an average between 30 and 60 in 3D mode. Around 40 fps in this case should be normal.

    If it's like cinema 3D then no because I don't really fancy the brightness being cut in half.
    New and good monitors have build in compensation for the brightness. My 3D LCD is almost just as bright in 3D mode as in 2D mode.

    O.o Seems like someone has money to burn.
    I worked for the money and decided to spend it on some new hardware. I like 3D tech and I will use the hardware for more things then just this game, so for me around 500 euro is a decent price.

    I am not trying to say im right, I'm just giving my own opinion about it. I understand that most people here won't play games in 3D for their own reasons, and that's a legal choice to make. I would love to play in 3D and I would like to see some experienced users to give feedback about their experience, since I have not yet played games in 3D at the moment.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,632
    The answer to all your questions is in the negatory.

    The price is too high for such little experience value. Even if it were free, it's not a big deal. The upsides do not outweigh the downsides, and it doesn't matter how accurate one's info is, because the 3D alone isn't a big enough draw, and seems to appeal to a small portion of players, more in the short term for the novelty, and lessening in the long term, leaving only the people who never get tired of it.

  8. #8
    From what I've heard the quality of 3d gaming depends on the game. I've heard crysis 2's 3D was mediocre but I've also heard the 3d is amazing in Metro 2033 and in Killzone 3.

    Imo it's just not worth it yet. I have nothing against the technology but it's in such a young stage adn too expensive for what you get back... I am curious how it will be in a couple of years. I'd rather spend the money on a good ips monitor or a better graphic card etcetera.

  9. #9
    My eyes must be useless because I get major headaches when I watch certain 3D stuff, mostly films. Tron Legacy had me up all night because my headache was so strong ._.

    I'm more interested in the multiple monitor setup that mimics peripheral vision. EyeFinity or something.

  10. #10
    I'm not really interested in enough new games to justify upgrading. I've played Portal 2 this year (it was fun, but the dialogue was a little forced), and I'll play Human Revolution in a few months. That's probably enough sequels for 2011!

  11. #11
    I'm also not opposed to the whole 3D buisiness. I like it in cinema if it's not overused and doesn't look forced, but I'll wait some years for the technology to further develope and prices to drop. And then a 3D TV would be my priority.

    I didn't have the opportunity to play a game in 3d yet, but I guess it could add to the experience quite a bit if implemented well. But as of now i find it to be way too expensive since I would also need a second gpu to achieve decent fps.

  12. #12
    As much as I'd like to, I can't stand 3d for more than a few minutes at a time. Having 3/20 vision doesn't help. If 3d doesn't bother you much and you have enough disposable income then go for it. Anything that helps immersion is a good thing.
    Crap Augmentation: Real time Killing Floor voiceover.

  13. #13
    Im very lucky, I know. I watched 3D movies in the cinema and at home without any problem. It's sad to hear some people are just physically not capable to use 3D glasses like it's meant to be. Even more sad to have problems with eyesight all the time in real life offcourse.

    About money, I don't think that 3D technology itself is so expensive. You just need a 120 Hz screen and glasses. The cost will be at least doubled by the SLI or Xfire setup you will likely need to keep fps up and that makes it expensive. If you play on console it's much easier, since the consoles just use a lower resolution (720P) in 3D mode. PC players are 'spoiled' and only accept native resolutions, like 1080P, just like I do.

    As far as I know it was not possible to play fullHD in 3D properly, because HDMI 1.4a limits the videosignal to 24 Hz in that mode. The monitor I am planning to get is the first 27 inch 3D screen utilizing DisplayPort 1.2 (s27a950d) instead of HDMI 1.4a, which makes 60 Hz on FullHD possible in 3D mode. In 2010 the biggest screen capable of this was 22 inch with 1680x1050 resolution, which is a too small monitor in my opinion for a good 3D experience. Since all barriers are gone for me, I make the step to 3D gaming. As far as I can predict I think it will be a great experience on a good hardware setup.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Tjeerd84
    Im very lucky, I know. I watched 3D movies in the cinema and at home without any problem. It's sad to hear some people are just physically not capable to use 3D glasses like it's meant to be. Even more sad to have problems with eyesight all the time in real life offcourse.

    About money, I don't think that 3D technology itself is so expensive. You just need a 120 Hz screen and glasses. The cost will be at least doubled by the SLI or Xfire setup you will likely need to keep fps up and that makes it expensive. If you play on console it's much easier, since the consoles just use a lower resolution (720P) in 3D mode. PC players are 'spoiled' and only accept native resolutions, like 1080P, just like I do.

    As far as I know it was not possible to play fullHD in 3D properly, because HDMI 1.4a limits the videosignal to 24 Hz in that mode. The monitor I am planning to get is the first 27 inch 3D screen utilizing DisplayPort 1.2 (s27a950d) instead of HDMI 1.4a, which makes 60 Hz on FullHD possible in 3D mode. In 2010 the biggest screen capable of this was 22 inch with 1680x1050 resolution, which is a too small monitor in my opinion for a good 3D experience. Since all barriers are gone for me, I make the step to 3D gaming. As far as I can predict I think it will be a great experience on a good hardware setup.
    Most console games run at 720p max normally. There are exceptions such as FFXIII or GT5 but those are rare examples coded specifically for the PS3's stupid amount of cores. I think it's not so much the resolution but the graphical effects and framerate which takes a hit for 3D.
    Crap Augmentation: Real time Killing Floor voiceover.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by IdiotInAJeep
    Most console games run at 720p max normally. There are exceptions such as FFXIII or GT5 but those are rare examples coded specifically for the PS3's stupid amount of cores. I think it's not so much the resolution but the graphical effects and framerate which takes a hit for 3D.
    I understand it's fps that takes the hit, but until DisplayPort 1.2, there was no other connection link between screen and computer that could transfer enough data to reach FullHD at 120Hz which is required for FullHD 60 Hz in 3D mode.
    The maximum in HDMI 1.4a (used by consoles and some newer videocards) is FullHD at 24 Hz if 3D is enabled. 24 Hz is used for Blu-Ray movies and HDMI 1.4a was developed primarely for that.

    This means that a computer or console that actually can make a game run on FullHD@120 Hz, will be limited to 24 Hz in 3D mode if it's using HDMI 1.4a or less if older cables are used. At this moment only DisplayPort 1.2 cables can reach 1920*1080@120Hz, which is the least I want.

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Tjeerd84

    1) Do you plan to play DX:HR on a 3D monitor?
    Yes. Even if I don't play in 3D all the time, the 120hz is amazing.

    2) What's your experience with AMD's HD3D in general?
    None, but I've been using nVidia's 3D Vision for almost a year now. It's very well supported in drivers and all that stuff, but it was rough when I started.

    3) How do you think the DX experience will change because of 3D?
    I think that will vary wildly by the user. One of the advantages in an fps game is that you are obviously having a lot more information available in terms of how far away something is. That sounds silly, but it's a distinct advantage. It also makes games, in general, just look better. If a game has great textures, they really, really shine in 3D.
    If you aren't running AA, then it isn't as big a deal in 3D, either.

    4) Do you want to pay today's price (about 500 euro or USD) for this 3D experience?
    I already have. I would have spent that much alone for my monitor. It's just great.
    I don't blame people who would say no. I don't know what it adds other than the depth advantage and the "cool" factor. From a standpoint of gaming philosophy, I don't think 3D adds anything to games. But it doesn't stop me from enjoying it immensely. I would argue that it adds to immersion but that would be an incredibly long discussion, one that I'm not entirely sure of.

    5) Do you want to game with the trouble of glasses and driver settings?
    With nVidia, the drivers are not an issue, but I wouldn't trust an AMD driver for anything, ever. The glasses aren't a big deal, but they are pretty dark. People say that monitors automatically adjust but that's just gamma and contrast, the games are darker.

    People also like to have the good old fps fallacy but I've never experienced a dip outside of Metro 2033, and that game ran like ass no matter if it was in stereo mode or not. I've never had a technical issue with the 3D, no glitches caused by it, no noticeable performance loss.
    If the AMD stuff is like the nVidia stuff, also, there'll be a little dial on the emitter where you can adjust the depth on the fly. So if you don't want the effect to be very strong, you just turn it down. Takes less than a second, works all the time.

    I have to mention, though, that I have a tumor behind my right eye. It gives me migraines and cluster headaches, which are so painful that I can't even describe them. Ever since I started using the monitor and the 3D stuff, a lot of the stressful times I'd have gaming have gone away. Not completely, but I can't tell you how relieving it is to play a game for more than an hour without wanting to die from the pain.
    I know this sounds contradictory to what many say, where 3D makes them nauseous and gives them headaches. I don't doubt them, but that's just not the case with me.
    Schon trübet der Mond sich verschwindenden Scheins, die Glocke, sie donnert ein mächtiges Eins, und unten zerschellt das Gerippe. -Göthe, Totentanz

  17. #17
    Thanks for the good read, and finally someone with 3D gaming experience. Your information sounds like most things I read on the internet about this subject, so I think you are right.
    It's a bit personal, but can the tumor be removed? I can only imagine how painfull migraine is. I hope for you it can and will get fixed someday. Maybe they can make you a skullgun Anyway good luck man!

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Tjeerd84
    Thanks for the good read, and finally someone with 3D gaming experience. Your information sounds like most things I read on the internet about this subject, so I think you are right.
    If you have any questions, I could try to answer them. But you seem to know more about the technical aspects of it than I do.

    It's a bit personal, but can the tumor be removed? I can only imagine how painfull migraine is. I hope for you it can and will get fixed someday. Maybe they can make you a skullgun Anyway good luck man!
    It can be removed, but I have to wait until it's larger. It sounds bad but it's really not a big deal. It's not dangerous or anything, it's just an annoyance that happens to cause severe pain.
    Schon trübet der Mond sich verschwindenden Scheins, die Glocke, sie donnert ein mächtiges Eins, und unten zerschellt das Gerippe. -Göthe, Totentanz

  19. #19
    I am looking forward to this game and hope the developers can work with Nvidia on making the game compatible with 3D Vision.

  20. #20
    I'm a recent convert to 3D gaming. I love it in theaters, but haven't been moved to buy a 3D TV because I don't find the experience to be that great for movies when the screen doesn't fill as much of my fov. However, for games, I was convinced the first time I tried a 3dvision pc at PAX (I don't have any AMD HD3D experience). There's something about the feeling of controlling the 3D environment I'm looking at that really ups the immersion factor for me.

    It's strange that every time it comes up there are people ready to jump all over the poster with their 'it's not worth it' and 'who cares' rants. Obviously it's not worth it for everyone. Personally I think it's great there is an option to make the experience even better (subjective, i know) if you have the money for a 3D screen and enough horsepower to keep the resolution and FPS high. That's one of the things that makes PC gaming awesome, that you can throw more and more money at it and get better and better experiences. Consoles max out, which is fine, but I don't want to play in 3D if I have to downgrade to 720p.

    Is it so threatening to everyone else that some people actually enjoy 3D and have the money to buy the hardware?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The Mythical City on the Hill
    Posts
    3,671
    3D isn't worth it, who cares?






    I'm joking, in case anyone can't pick up on it. There's always someone. Not mentioning any names.

    (click image to enlarge)

  22. #22
    Heh, nice.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1
    Just speculating here, but seems to me that the majority of the "3D isn't worth it" or "3D doesn't add anything" posters may not have experienced a well-done 3D game. Sure there are 3D games that are just bad, just as there are bad 3D movies (Clash of the Titans). When done right, however, the immersion is incredible. Metro 2033 is an example of a game that literally caused me to jump in my seat at certain points. It absolutely increased the intensity of the game. I completely understand the "3D isn't something that interests me" opinions. What strikes me as odd are the defiant "3D is a waste", or "3D is worthless" comments. Why so passionately against it? It would be just as erroneous if I said "3D gaming is the only way to game, 2D is a waste."

  24. #24
    Tjeerd, if you can get hold of the newest PC Gamer (UK), they dedicate a page to building a 3D rig to play DX:HR on. Depending on how much you've decided on already with your new rig, it could be pretty useful.

    As for whether I'd be tempted to go the same route, I'd have to try before I buy. I'd love to see what it's like. Hopefully it'll be more like the time I saw Avatar at the London IMAX in 3D rather then the post production 3D movies we've been getting since.
    'DA ROOMINOUS PAFF ARE EASY PRREEEEY.'

  25. #25

    EIDOS: How to support 3D whilst helping everyone else

    Regardless of whether or not you care about 3D, folk worry to much about Devs spending too much time working on games to get them to work in 3D. They needn't. Forget about trying to get the game to run in 3D altogether!!

    Every 3D gamer knows that every game will run in 3D. But some work better then others. To make the game run well in 3D all Eidos need do is provide a decent set of options in the graphics menu e.g. disabling/changing: shadows, shaders, ability to turn off crosshair etc.

    This should help everyone and will also prevent Eidos getting flamed for not considering PC gamers who are used to having plenty of settings, graphics/gameplay to play with anyway.

    Hope this help and what do you think?

    Andy

Page 1 of 4 1234 Last