Skyrim in Stereoscopic 3D - Outstanding Experience! : V - Skyrim

» Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:32 pm

im jealous i must admit.. i do have an nvidia card with 3d vision discover but thats nothing compared to the real deal

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:08 am

Well, I just thought of a question. You know those old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viewmaster that some of us had as kids? You know how their "3D" effect was sometimes just several flat images set in a 3D manner - meaning, the image as a whole was 3D, but each individual thing in the picture was flat 2D? Does the game render individual items in 3D? As in, if I look off into the distance and there's a cylindrical tower in the medium distance, is it going to look cylindrical to me, or is it going to appear as a flat item, but the whole picture is in 3D?

I'm not sure I communicated that well, but maybe you understand what I'm saying.

I think I know exactly what you are saying because I got the same impression from looking at some of the 3d movies that have come out on 3d tv etc. at Best buy. I think unless the movie is filmed with 3d in mind, the effect is poorly translated.
To answer your question, um yes, and no, in that order. The tower would look cylindrical and not like a flat tower with a flat bandit running closer to you, behind the flat grass in the foreground etc. From what I could tell, NPCS, their armor, etc. is all rendered with a sense of depth. I'm not sure how the mechanics behind it work, because it wasn't like the closer stuff was sticking "out" of the screen at me, but more like the screen of the monitor is like a window and everything in the game world is in a 3d world behind that window. I prefer that way, anyway, to the gimmicky "stuff sticking out of the screen" 3d.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:57 am

I think I know exactly what you are saying because I got the same impression from looking at some of the 3d movies that have come out on 3d tv etc. at Best buy. I think unless the movie is filmed with 3d in mind, the effect is poorly translated.
To answer your question, um yes, and no, in that order. The tower would look cylindrical and not like a flat tower with a flat bandit running closer to you, behind the flat grass in the foreground etc. From what I could tell, NPCS, their armor, etc. is all rendered with a sense of depth. I'm not sure how the mechanics behind it work, because it wasn't like the closer stuff was sticking "out" of the screen at me, but more like the screen of the monitor is like a window and everything in the game world is in a 3d world behind that window. I prefer that way, anyway, to the gimmicky "stuff sticking out of the screen" 3d.

Ah, good. That's good.

As for the stuff sticking out of the screen effect, I imagine some of that might happen with swords or arrows zooming right toward the camera, but other than that I wouldn't think it would be too bad. I was just curious about how things panned out. I kinda figured this is how it would be, but wasn't sure.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:07 am

I think I know exactly what you are saying because I got the same impression from looking at some of the 3d movies that have come out on 3d tv etc. at Best buy. I think unless the movie is filmed with 3d in mind, the effect is poorly translated.
To answer your question, um yes, and no, in that order. The tower would look cylindrical and not like a flat tower with a flat bandit running closer to you, behind the flat grass in the foreground etc. From what I could tell, NPCS, their armor, etc. is all rendered with a sense of depth. I'm not sure how the mechanics behind it work, because it wasn't like the closer stuff was sticking "out" of the screen at me, but more like the screen of the monitor is like a window and everything in the game world is in a 3d world behind that window. I prefer that way, anyway, to the gimmicky "stuff sticking out of the screen" 3d.

This is about as close as I could describe the experience as well. It was neat, and even enjoyable in a way that 2D couldn 't provide, but not nearly as "awesome sauce" as I had hoped.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:08 am

If I could get something like a 21" 3D monitor to plug into my laptop I'd do it. It has both an SVGA out and an HDMI out, and 3D would look awesome if there were settings for it in Skyrim.

What I don't understand though: Proper 3D requires the computer to render each image twice, once slightly left and once slightly right to achieve the effect. Given that there are no settings for this in Skyrim, how do you get the game to do this?

As others have mentioned - while the 3D does not need to be "native" (IE: built into the game) to the game, developers can (and often times do) make their games easier for a 3rd party video driver to create a 3D image.

My 3D laptop uses "tridef" drivers to turn 2D games into 3D to be displayed on its polarized screen which I view with cheap passive 3D glasses just like the ones you get when watching 3D movies at the local theater.

My gaming desktop (attached to the 3DTv) uses Nvidia drivers with "3dplay" to push a 3D image/Sound out the HDMI cable to my reciever/TV.

Playing almost ANY game in 3D requires more video card performance and often times more CPU performance. Most "Gamer PC's" with one or more high end video cards will do the job. Since two distinct images are being rendered for each frame - the work load on your PC is +2x (more than 2x) the workload of simply doing a single image/frame 2D rendering.

While playing - instead of looking at a "painting" IE: FLAT image - the image can have depth. If the visual convergence setting for the game is adjusted so that the "0" depth point is moved forward (inside) into the screen, some in game visual effects will "pop out" of the screen - making you duck or blink your eyes!

There are a few drawbacks to 3D gaming, namely:

- some people get headaches watching it. some become accustomed to it, others never will
- depth might need to be added in stages as the viewer becomes accustomed to the imagery
- 'console ports' usually require the least amount of additional hardware, native PC titles require much more hardware to render at good frame rates
- 3Dtv's and monitors may be costly in some countries, (I see bestbuy has discounted the TV I bought last May to <$500)
- expensive hardware goes down in value
- once you've played a title that was well rendered in 3D its difficult at best to play anything in 2D again

I'm now lusting after a 64" 1080/3D monitor!

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:32 am

Hey mbloof, how would you rate the experience with the tridef drivers? I've used my 3dTV for the desk top, but never used a 3d laptop (in the market for a portable gaming top to take with on business trips.) Would you say they're worth the money, or for the price just get better hardware in other areas

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:30 am

If you are correcting somebody on the fault of their claims, it may be a good idea to back your corrections with proof (like links to factual medical papers or articles written by those far more involved with these fields) or your post holds no more weight than the one/s you are responding to.

Factual proof for obvious statements are redundant.

However the case to be proven here is that 3D is bad for you. Not that its NOT bad for you. (I'm sorry, is there some handycap that prevents you from "google" or "wikipedia"?)

Until PROVEN otherwise its a "myth".

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:51 am

Factual proof for obvious statements are redundant.

Lots of things that are "obviously correct" are factually wrong.

A great deal of the history of science has been in proving this sort of thing.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:06 am

I believe there will come a time when some form of 3D will become common place in most homes especially where gaming is concerned.

Its already here.............................. Grab some pointy ears, a wooden sword and one of the misses green dresses and visit any field in North Derbyshire on a sunday afternoon, there will be loads of true 3d gamers there

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:01 am

I wish I could afford to play in 3D. I imagine it would be amazing, especially when you're fighting atop a steep mountain cliff.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:48 am

Yeah, I imagine that people would just be running all over the place like they did when the game first came out. Cliff diving would be a hundred times more fun, and God knows what else.

» Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:16 am

Factual proof for obvious statements are redundant.

However the case to be proven here is that 3D is bad for you. Not that its NOT bad for you. (I'm sorry, is there some handycap that prevents you from "google" or "wikipedia"?)

Until PROVEN otherwise its a "myth".

Dude, it's up up to the poster to prove his/her case not the other way around. Is there some kind of self important drive that makes you feel as though others should do your work for you? Welcome to reality kiddo.