• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

When will ATI have 3D?

R

Robert_J

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
311
I really think 3D vision must be pretty fun while gaming...

but I dont wanna change my ATI card just for that reason

anyone know when ATI will release 3D for 5000 series?
 
there already is, it is called iz3d. and i think no game in 3d vision impresses beside the nvidia demo.
 
iz3d is awful. The picture can never be sharp, its always fuzzy and dark. Kiss your AA/AF good bye, because it is useless with that fuzzy garbarge.

ATI is working on 3D, but I haven't heard an estimated release date for anything stereoscopic.

mafa said:
there already is, it is called iz3d. and i think no game in 3d vision impresses beside the nvidia demo.
Click to expand...

ignorance.jpg
 
AFAIK, the support is already in the drivers open to any manufacturer that wants to tie into them. It's up to different manufacturers of glasses/solutions to tie into it. ATI isn't going to make the glasses themselves.
 
ATI is working on it, IZ3D is the only current available 3D for ATI.

other than that, none so far, at least for now.

Also, as someone else already mention, 3D is crap and gimmick (some 3D fan will argue, but facts remain), unless you are totally into 3D stuff, otherwise don't even think about it.
 
Also, as someone else already mention, 3D is crap and gimmick (some 3D fan will argue, but facts remain), unless you are totally into 3D stuff, otherwise don't even think about it.
Click to expand...

Using your generalization logic, most people who say 3D is crap and gimmick have never played a game with it, or have a visual disability that prevents them from seeing in 3D even in the real world (they are said to be something like 15% of the population).

3D technology is not perfect yet and needs to be adjusted per system, game AND player, but when it works, it is mind blowing and going back to 2D will feel bland and boring. For example, GTA4 looks astonishing in 3D.
 
TooFastToPlay said:
Using your generalization logic, most people who say 3D is crap and gimmick have never played a game with it, or have a visual disability that prevents them from seeing in 3D even in the real world (they are said to be something like 15% of the population).

3D technology is not perfect yet and needs to be adjusted per system, game AND player, but when it works, it is mind blowing and going back to 2D will feel bland and boring. For example, GTA4 looks astonishing in 3D.
Click to expand...

facts still remain, 3D with glasses is stupid and painful for most user.

I tried it several times, I really tried to like it but I still can't....

I will wait until a full 3D comes out without glass and try again, before that, its a NONO for most people.

and not to mention lots of people have 3D sickness after about 1-2 hours of using it, some even faster.
 
Why do you say for most users? Your own experience does not have to be valid for everyone. I already said there is a percentage of the population who can't even SEE in 3D, and another that find it hard to adapt.

There is still an adaptation period as the technology is not perfect, but even many hardcore FPS gamers will admit to having had motion sickness the fist time they played a fast paced one (on a normal 2D diapley). And many casual gamers feel sick when they play modern videogames.

With nvidia 3dvision, you have to start with a low depth setting, and slowly and gradually increase it until you get to a point where it is impressive while at the same time comfortable. This point may change for every game you try.

What is the problem with glasses? Come on. The only glasses-free display I know is the upcoming nintendo 3ds, and while you don't need the glasses, the tradeoff is that it only works in a narrow certain position and you cannot move. And it has exactly the same issues of eyestrain, motion sickness, etc.
 
TooFastToPlay said:
Why do you say for most users? Your own experience does not have to be valid for everyone. I already said there is a percentage of the population who can't even SEE in 3D, and another that find it hard to adapt.

There is still an adaptation period as the technology is not perfect, but even many hardcore FPS gamers will admit to having had motion sickness the fist time they played a fast paced one (on a normal 2D diapley). And many casual gamers feel sick when they play modern videogames.

With nvidia 3dvision, you have to start with a low depth setting, and slowly and gradually increase it until you get to a point where it is impressive while at the same time comfortable. This point may change for every game you try.

What is the problem with glasses? Come on. The only glasses-free display I know is the upcoming nintendo 3ds, and while you don't need the glasses, the tradeoff is that it only works in a narrow certain position and you cannot move. And it has exactly the same issues of eyestrain, motion sickness, etc.
Click to expand...

Its not just my opinion, there were a thread poll about it started by kyle awhile ago. lots of people in that thread have same opinion as mine.

3D is cool in general, something refreshing, but using it for games constantly is not a great idea. the 3D sickness is just nasty. unless you are totally resisting it, which very rare people do.

about the glasses, it was one of the poll option, lots of people vote on that as a problem that prevent people using it.
There were also some 3D TV showing in Computex Taipei IIRC. Not just the N3DS.
 
game 3d is crap. srs

totaly garbage. ati or nvidia.

more FOV = better
 
as a owner of 3d vision, I am going to have to say that its an acquired taste. I HATE it for online FPS multiplayer. I dont mind it but prefer not using it for campaigns.

Racing its pretty much a must have IMO, especially when you have 3 monitors (but thats $1400 in monitors+glasses and another $600-$1000 for vid cards..)

RPG's its ok but long hours make it tiring.

RTS its kinda neat and helps pick out units I think more.

in the end if you dont play a lot of FPSs then its a great thing. if you do I think you are losing a edge. that being said the 120hz monitors give you an edge when playing in 2d. I have noticed my KDR in MW2 go up since my 120hz monitor.
 
I hope ATI never does and 3D dies like it should. Bring on the holodecks instead which is where ATI seems to be moving (instead of this cheap looking, gimicky bullshit NV is trying to push for gaming).

shansoft said:
facts still remain, 3D with glasses is stupid and painful for most user.

I tried it several times, I really tried to like it but I still can't....

I will wait until a full 3D comes out without glass and try again, before that, its a NONO for most people.

and not to mention lots of people have 3D sickness after about 1-2 hours of using it, some even faster.
Click to expand...
QFT. I can't stand it after a half hour. Wearing those stupid glasses over the ones I already wear is just plain retarded.
 
TooFastToPlay said:
3D technology is not perfect yet and needs to be adjusted per system, game AND player, but when it works, it is mind blowing and going back to 2D will feel bland and boring. For example, GTA4 looks astonishing in 3D.
Click to expand...

In my experience 3D and PC gaming is mind numbing, headache causing, and palette and clarity robbing.
 
wow... well im definitely discouraged from 3D now

thanks though for all the info
 
Robert_J said:
wow... well im definitely discouraged from 3D now

thanks though for all the info
Click to expand...


its kind of one of those things that if you see it being demo'd some where its worth checking it out.. actually owning it is a totally different story.. its a gimmick and always will be..

+1 on the damn holodeck.. i want to stab some 3D zombies with a sword damnit!
 
Don't got to [H] and expect to hear anything positive about 3D, a fair % of normal people don't like it (in the cinema or elsewhere) including Kyle who hates it. All Ati fan boys hate it (because nvidia does it better and 3D vision is a closed standard). That's most of the posters on [H]. A typical [H] thread on the subject normally has about 20 people arguing against it, nearly all of which have never actually used it, and about one 3D vision fan boy arguing for it - who while being a fan boy at least is talking from experience of using 3D.

Is 3D that bad - well I don't think I've seen a single review that was very negative - they pretty well all say it has issues but is surprisingly good (a bit like eye infinity).

Will Ati do 3D - going by ati's previous track record the answer is not for a long time. Almost certainly Ati will talk about it, they will say open standards are better, they will say nvidia's close standard sucks, etc .... but they won't actually do anything - it'll be all talk no action. If you actually want to game in 3D nvidia will be by far the best choice for the next few years.
 
Last edited:
sbuckler said:
Don't got to [H] and expect to hear anything positive about 3D, a fair % of normal people don't like it (in the cinema or elsewhere) including Kyle who hates it. All Ati fan boys hate it (because nvidia does it better and 3D vision is a closed standard). That's most of the posters on [H]. A typical [H] thread on the subject normally has about 20 people arguing against it, nearly all of which have never actually used it, and about one 3D vision fan boy arguing for it - who while being a fan boy at least is talking from experience of using 3D.

Is 3D that bad - well I don't think I've seen a single review that was very negative - they pretty well all say it has issues but is surprisingly good (a bit like eye infinity).

Will Ati do 3D - going by ati's previous track record the answer is not for a long time. Almost certainly Ati will talk about it, they will say open standards are better, they will say nvidia's close standard sucks, etc .... but they won't actually do anything - it'll be all talk no action. If you actually want to game in 3D nvidia will be by far the best choice for the next few years.
Click to expand...

I tried it and I totally hate it.

And I own both Nvidia and Ati cards.

It is not for everyone, just like eyefinity is not for everyone
 
Wow, I for one had no headaches or eyestrain playing games in 3d, it was mostly comfortable. The default depth effects seemed pretty shallow in most the games I played and increasing the depth (separation) made for a better 3d effect.

But it really depended on the game as to how well the 3d effect felt. I didn't like the feel of any Unreal Engine based game, the objects felt flat and closer to each other than they actually were. Dragon Age and World of Warcraft had the best depth of any game I tried. I think it's because thosee engines use fewer performance tricks and so everything is represented properly for 3d.

Main problem was after about 15 minutes the wow factor wore off and it didn't feel much different than just playing in 2d. The literal difference in real world is walking around with one eye closed. You aren't affected by it much, so once you're acclimated to the 3d in games it doesn't feel any different than 2d just like shutting one eye doesn't feel any different when you're walking around. At least that was my experience.

Absolutely something worth seeing for the coolness though but didn't seem worth an investment in or using for a duration. I definitely would not say I hated it though. It worked great, it just seemed the effect wasn't worth even the very minor discomfort for a long gaming session.
 
Last edited:
sbuckler said:
Don't got to [H] and expect to hear anything positive about 3D, a fair % of normal people don't like it (in the cinema or elsewhere) including Kyle who hates it. All Ati fan boys hate it (because nvidia does it better and 3D vision is a closed standard). That's most of the posters on [H]. A typical [H] thread on the subject normally has about 20 people arguing against it, nearly all of which have never actually used it, and about one 3D vision fan boy arguing for it - who while being a fan boy at least is talking from experience of using 3D.

Is 3D that bad - well I don't think I've seen a single review that was very negative - they pretty well all say it has issues but is surprisingly good (a bit like eye infinity).

Will Ati do 3D - going by ati's previous track record the answer is not for a long time. Almost certainly Ati will talk about it, they will say open standards are better, they will say nvidia's close standard sucks, etc .... but they won't actually do anything - it'll be all talk no action. If you actually want to game in 3D nvidia will be by far the best choice for the next few years.
Click to expand...

oh yes lets bring in the whole ATI fanboy shit again.. to bad that most of us that have mosted own nvidia cards.. has nothing to do with who has it and who doesnt.. i still hate it and it still sucks whether ATI has it or not.. theres absolutely no reason for ATI to put money in 3D support because it will never take off.. they will never make the R&D costs back in sales.. which is why you do open standards because it puts the extra buck on the developer and not ATI or nvidia..
 
I've played stereo vision before and it's i can say that it actually makes for an immersive game. It's crap for anything that needs a cursor or a crosshair where you need fine aiming. But 3rd person games look incredible with it. You basically have a moving diorama in front of you.

I wish nvidia still supported legacy 3D. I'd really like to play Just Cause 2 in stereo.
 
When John Wayne was making cowboy and Indian films we had a 3D fad back then too!
It has no place in my home and I don't really care for it, at the cinema I welcome it as the odd novelty and nothing more.
 
sbuckler said:
Thumbs up for reviewing it and actually going into a bit of detail over what did and didn't work - can't argue with an opinion obtained through giving it a good go :)
Click to expand...

I had to be honest about it, but I surely know that some folks do like it. The huge perf hits at large resolutions kinda suck though. I just don't see it being ready for multi-display gaming yet. I don't want to gimp the IQ that hard to see in 3D even if I liked the effect. Just takes a lot of horsepower to push all those pixel.
 
Would love to try a racing game with 3D Surround but overall I hate 3D. Especially in fast paced FPS games. Just watching a movie like Avatar in 3D gave me a headache. Too much motion, and my eyes can never focus properly on small details which is what frustrates me.
 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and judging from the responses here and in other threads there are a lot of users who don't like stereoscopic 3D. That's fine. I just wish those people didn't feel the need to slander the technology as crap/gimmick/cheap/stupid and that stereoscopic 3D should "[die] like it should."

I've personally always loved the effect, both in theaters and in the vary short experience I've had with 3D Vision. I'd be rather happy if this year's push for 3D actually sticks and the product selection improves by the time I can afford to upgrade.

If you don't like the technology, you don't need to buy it. It's not being forced upon you.

Also... I keep hearing people yearn for "holographic" displays that provide true 3D. I understand the appeal, but such a display would then require a rather large room, and the video/game would be required to keep all of its visuals within that bounding volume, which is a pretty serious limitation. Funny how in Star Trek no-one ever walked into the walls of the holodeck. edit: I suppose with a nice enough omnidirectional treadmill you could make a nice VR experience.
 
mafa said:
there already is, it is called iz3d. and i think no game in 3d vision impresses beside the nvidia demo.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Everything I have read says the iZ3D has more issues with ghosting than Nvidia's method. Tell me, what research have you done to substantiate your claim? I happen to own Nvidia 3D Vision so am well qualified to comment and know what you say is utter garbage. My main PC uses ATI 5870 though so is proof I am not a Nvidia fanboy either. I have lots of experience with 3D on the PC too going back ten years.
 
mortonP said:
Why do you say that? Everything I have read says the iZ3D has more issues with ghosting than Nvidia's method. Tell me, what research have you done to substantiate your claim? I happen to own Nvidia 3D Vision so am well qualified to comment and know what you say is utter garbage. My main PC uses ATI 5870 though so is proof I am not a Nvidia fanboy either. I have lots of experience with 3D on the PC too going back ten years.
Click to expand...

anecdotal experiences aren't proof of anything. If mafa wasn't impressed by 3D Vision you can't say he's lying.
 
shansoft said:
Also, as someone else already mention, 3D is crap and gimmick (some 3D fan will argue, but facts remain), unless you are totally into 3D stuff, otherwise don't even think about it.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow.
 
Last edited:
Kaldskryke said:
anecdotal experiences aren't proof of anything. If mafa wasn't impressed by 3D Vision you can't say he's lying.
Click to expand...

Where did he say he has even used it? All he did was make a blind comment based on zero experience. In a game that supports it properly, like Barman AA, it is simply amazing, just as good as the movie avatar. If people are expecting it to work really well in every game then they don't understand 3D at all. In a flight sim or racing sim with a good 3D cockpit and in conjunction with TrackIR it is just one more step to making you feel like you are there. If some of you think that is just a gimmick then I have an iPad to sell you for $750.00.
 
Sly said:
I've played stereo vision before and it's i can say that it actually makes for an immersive game. It's crap for anything that needs a cursor or a crosshair where you need fine aiming. But 3rd person games look incredible with it. You basically have a moving diorama in front of you.

I wish nvidia still supported legacy 3D. I'd really like to play Just Cause 2 in stereo.
Click to expand...

Nvidia provides a 3D crosshair replacement for the 2D one that most games use. The mouse cursor issue can be a problem in a few games but I have quite a few games where the cursor is 3D and works fine so it is good for 3D strat games too. In tactical strat games 3D makes the game better because you can get a better perspective of your position compared to the enemies. In the 7.22 and Hired Guns the 3D really makes the games better. It supposed to work well in Civ4 too but haven`t checked that one out. The game developers have to think 3D for everything to make it work really well. And you don`t need high res or AA when running a game in 3D. I use 1024x768 res on an LG Flatron CRT and the 3D makes AA and high res non essential. Maybe it is the crap LCDs that make it look not so good and people need to get a good CRT for it.
 
3d is a fadd that's all there is to it. Until they cam make it look a whole lot better, it's not going anywhere.
 
mortonP said:
Nvidia provides a 3D crosshair replacement for the 2D one that most games use. The mouse cursor issue can be a problem in a few games but I have quite a few games where the cursor is 3D and works fine so it is good for 3D strat games too. In tactical strat games 3D makes the game better because you can get a better perspective of your position compared to the enemies. In the 7.22 and Hired Guns the 3D really makes the games better. It supposed to work well in Civ4 too but haven`t checked that one out. The game developers have to think 3D for everything to make it work really well. And you don`t need high res or AA when running a game in 3D. I use 1024x768 res on an LG Flatron CRT and the 3D makes AA and high res non essential. Maybe it is the crap LCDs that make it look not so good and people need to get a good CRT for it.
Click to expand...

I really haven't tried 3D gaming but I just have to wonder how 3D makes you not need higher resolution or AA in gaming? Let me tell you it was a huge jump going from 1600x1200 CRT to 1920x1200 LCD and getting my 5870 that allowed me to crank AA in games as well. I can't imagine wanting to play a game at 1024x768. I haven't played at less than 1600x1200 resolution in like 7 or 8 years.
 
ELox said:
I really haven't tried 3D gaming but I just have to wonder how 3D makes you not need higher resolution or AA in gaming? Let me tell you it was a huge jump going from 1600x1200 CRT to 1920x1200 LCD and getting my 5870 that allowed me to crank AA in games as well. I can't imagine wanting to play a game at 1024x768. I haven't played at less than 1600x1200 resolution in like 7 or 8 years.
Click to expand...

It might be because the aliasing artifacts are not common between left-eye and right-eye frames. Each frame has its own aliasing. For some people, this is perceived as a slight blurring on edges where there is slight discrepancy, or better yet some people simply don't perceive the aliasing at all. Others are unfortunately unable to reconcile the differences and suffer from eyestrain and headache.

I often feel like stereoscopic content provides better perceived resolution than would be expected given the source. Find some decent stereo photographs and you can see what I mean - even low res pictures tend to look fairly high detail (unless they're just poor photo-shop jobs). edit: here's one. Cross your eyes until the images "converge" (it will look like three images, the middle one being the image of interest) and you should be able to see it.
 
Yes, when an object looks like it is real 3D the edges are rounded so are smooth looking already. I never use AA when running 3D games. 1024x768 is plenty of res too but I guess more is probably better but your video card needs to work twice as hard to keep the frame rates up in 3D so it is better to use a CRT so you can use a lower res and have decent frame rates. I'm using an 8800GT and my frame rates are good in all games using 3D @1024x768. If I was forced to use an LCD with 1920x1200 then those frame rates in 3D would probably suck. Anyway, I have no intention of running all my games 3D all the time because it does do a number on your eyes if you use them for too long. But in doses of a couple of hours or so and for games that do 3D really well it is a fun experience and not just a gimmick. The thing is I have the option to use 3D if I choose and those who call it just a gimmick won't. Their loss.
 
Last edited:
mortonP said:
Nvidia provides a 3D crosshair replacement for the 2D one that most games use. The mouse cursor issue can be a problem in a few games but I have quite a few games where the cursor is 3D and works fine so it is good for 3D strat games too. In tactical strat games 3D makes the game better because you can get a better perspective of your position compared to the enemies. In the 7.22 and Hired Guns the 3D really makes the games better. It supposed to work well in Civ4 too but haven`t checked that one out. The game developers have to think 3D for everything to make it work really well. And you don`t need high res or AA when running a game in 3D. I use 1024x768 res on an LG Flatron CRT and the 3D makes AA and high res non essential. Maybe it is the crap LCDs that make it look not so good and people need to get a good CRT for it.
Click to expand...

The 3D crosshairs are an adequate patch job, but still not quite perfect. FPS are probably the only games where you can really be immersed tho, when something explodes into pieces, you actually feel like those pieces are flying right at you and running through smoke has a really odd sensation. Stereo + Physics FTW.

As for the cursor on RTS, it's always rendered like it was maybe 50 feet above the ground, selecting individual units is a pain.

ELox said:
I really haven't tried 3D gaming but I just have to wonder how 3D makes you not need higher resolution or AA in gaming? Let me tell you it was a huge jump going from 1600x1200 CRT to 1920x1200 LCD and getting my 5870 that allowed me to crank AA in games as well. I can't imagine wanting to play a game at 1024x768. I haven't played at less than 1600x1200 resolution in like 7 or 8 years.
Click to expand...

At the time i was using legacy 3D, 1024x768 was the norm and you really don't notice the pixels.
 
To me its too early to go 3D. Go watch 3d movies at theater. Didnt impress me. Watched toystory in 3d last week.
 
I live a little over a hour from Virginia Beach, VA. The humidity here is oppressive to say the least. I don't think I could survive 10 minutes with those glasses on. Hell I have sweat running down my ears when I have to coordinate crap on vent wearing my headphones. I could imagine having the glasses's cord, headphone cord, and mic cord attached to me and sweat rolling down my face. 3/4 of the time I pretend my vent doesn't work to avoid the damn headphones. :)

I'll wait for the glasses free version to come out. That makes more sense in my situation.
 
Get AC.

The tech is not perfect but if the games are made for 3D in mind then it is near perfect. A game is far more immersive in 3D than without 3D. For 3D strat games they just need to provide a 3D cursor option to fix the floating above ground cursor issue. I overcome it anyway and am able to still play the games fine.

My 3D computer is just one of my 5 and my main PC for gaming is actually a PC with a 5870 and 27.5" LCD that can't even do 120hz. The 3D computer is just used occasionally when I feel like playing in 3D and is not something I use every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top