Fully Functional,Fully Supported Middleware is Must

[Dilip]

Though Ouculus Says Virtual Reality is all togather diffrent and requires SDK intigration at Developer level and its tough to achieve near perfection in VR Via middleware. which is looking to be true too.

i still stongly believe there must be a fully functional middleware like TRIDEF or NVIDIA. so that we can play again our long charished entire game collection in VR and we really don need to see towards developer, that wether will they make their already long back released game open again and update with RIFT SDK? how many such developer who can be approched and how many such studioes or publishers who will accept to work again on this?

While its VERY GOOD to DEVELOPE new game With RIFT SUPPORT and sure there will be nice great Killer Apps to come.
what about many many great games that are already in existance?

Here i wish OCULUS should APPROCH Tridef or NVIDIA or Both for Middleware and reagardless, if it requires to pay again by rift buyer. it would be way great to have dedicated expert team supported middleware instead of single person worked around secret project or No one's "Deserted Child" like OpenSource Middleware.(No pun intended Vireio,VorpeX who cares!)

Thats why 3D Vison and 3D monitors are successful as they didn't required game to be tweaked for them.I think success of RIFT needs best of both "Past and Future".

What you all think?

[Dilip]

Finally we have TRIDEF officially backing RIFT though in BITA but So IS RIFT now. i think by consumer release of rift it will gain its momentum...poll is now irrevalant as its purpose achived,,,,,thanks those who casted vote....

Glad to find TRIDEF with RIFT its New ErA...

[TheHolyChicken]

I'm just going to re-post what I wrote from the other, similar thread:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While such drivers I think are great for 3D content in general, I would strongly disagree in the case of the Rift - I would prefer if consumers could only get natively supported games working easily.

Why? Non-supported games, made "compatible" with driver hacks, are not unlikely to suffer from one or more of:

• 3D depth issues [uncomfortable viewing]
• Rendering issues, eg shadow, reflection issues due to the introduction of roll (mice only do yaw/pitch) [uncomfortable viewing]
• Non-Rift compatible GUI [hampers gameplay]
• Potential headtracking issues [nausea]
• Latency [nausea]
• Control schemes unsuited for VR, eg no keyhole aiming [nausea/hampers gameplay]
• The game breaking the "laws" of VR, such as commandeering the player's headtracking, shaking/moving the screen [nausea]
• ...

Any combination of these effects are likely to cause the user to have an unpleasant (or, at minimum, non-optimal) experience. A 3D display with bad 3D is just a bit uncomfortable to look at; a title with bad Rift support can not only be uncomfortable to look at, but can also cause the user to feel really, REALLY ill. This would reflect very badly on the Rift, likely causing a lot of unnecessary bad press & bad reputation, and potentially hampering the future uptake of VR on the whole. Drivers frequently require extensive and time-consuming tinkering and tweaking with settings to achieve satisfactory performance in a game.

I'm not saying these drivers shouldn't exist, but frankly I only want to see them in the hands of expert users who fully appreciate what they're potentially putting themselves in for. Far from being a "must", I think these middleware items are potentially dangerous for the uptake of VR.

[Ericshelpdesk]

Middleware does not necessarily mean that it needs to take over the camera and put your face into it in every game. It can be as simple as creating a virtual 3D screen (ala virtual cinema) to play legacy games on. Most games just aren't going to translate well to oculus, but the ability to play then on a screen that could only be dreamed of will translate to an impressive user experience.

In increasing levels of immersive gameplay:
1: Large 2D screen
- Even though most Imax movies are in 2D, the huge scale of the screen still creates a sense of being there.

2: Large 3D screen
- 3D Vision or DDD like gameplay on a huge virtual screen. This is the next step in the chain of immersive gameplay for most games out there. Most of the problems with in game VR go away, but you're still left with an awesome immersive experience.

3: In game head tracking
- The obvious gold standard if it can be implemented correctly.

The middleware that can perform these functions will get my support, and if necessary, my money.

[Valez]

Just to be clear:
Isn't the SDK fully, functional, fully supported middleware?

I don't think drivers that hijack the rendering pipeline count as middleware.

[Dilip]

Nope SDK speaks for itself a SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT. its code that has to be integrated at development level for RIFT Specific Output.

Middle ware is "independent software" which executes between main software output and display output.

[Valez]

No, actually the SDK IS middleware:

This is a quote from Wikipedia:

Middleware makes it easier for software developers to perform communication and input/output, so they can focus on the specific purpose of their application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleware


Don't get me wrong, I understand that you (like myself) are not a native speaker, and I don't want to be a smart ass.
However, I think in a more technical forum like this, we should make an effort to try to use the correct terminology to avoid confusion.

[Dilip]

ATI Catalyst support for 3D Stereoscopic glasses
AMD has updated it’s Direct3D (Quad buffer support) driver to enable 3rd party middleware vendors such as iZ3D to output stereo L/R images at 120 Hz (60 Hz per eye)

http://3dvision-blog.com/tag/stereo-3d-middleware/

AMD has relationships with middleware vendors such as Dynamic Digital Depth ...

http://www.amd.com/us/Documents/AMD_HD3 ... _Guide.pdf

Please, Check yourself Middlewear are always 3RD Party "Programs" and they are intended to achive desired output which is not avialble on normal course without actully modifying the source programs's code or its otherwise normal functionality.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that you (like myself) are not a native speaker, and I don't want to be a smart ass.

So is what i request to you...

Still, actully "drivers that hijack the rendering pipeline" Are indeed middlewares as they don't require Game developers to rewrite their code for particular output.

Where as in case of RIFT SDK really DEVELOPER NEED TO INTIGRATE it in game code so its not middleware atleast from enduser point of view( With RIFT SDK you can not play SKYRIM which is not modified (as of now) for RIFT but with Middleware like TRIDEF Rift Output Bita or Virieo Perception you can play it on RIFT with flaws of course but you can.)

May be from developer Point of View it could be Sort of Middleware (i am not developer, so i don't know and can't comment) for VALVE but frankly its not middleware for enduser. here we are discussing from enduser point of view and certainly are not in "Rift Developers Forum"

[shole]

You mean like OpenHMD?
I think it needs to be this or something like this.
Free and open to develop on and to with no device specific code required for game implementation.

[Valez]

May be from developer Point of View it could be Sort of Middleware [...]

That is my point of view and it is middleware.

Maybe from a consumer point of view you could call the injectors middleware and I don't believe there is a binding definition of
what middleware is anywhere and we may be both right.
However, for me it just doesn't sound right to call something middleware that wasn't even supposed to work with the software.

Well this discussion got a bit off topic and doesn't actually contribute very much, sorry for that.

[Ryuuken24]

Developers are lazy, and do stuff when they want to. The fact that some of them make a game can either be for money, or want to share an idea with other people but, as far as changing one of those, you got another boat coming, and it's going to take a long wait for it to come around.
Middleware needs people to develop it, sometimes it takes greedy to get it going, how fast it goes, is how fast that money hunger is.

[Dilip]

Developers are lazy, and do stuff when they want to. The fact that some of them make a game can either be for money, or want to share an idea with other people but, as far as changing one of those, you got another boat coming, and it's going to take a long wait for it to come around.

Exactly, that was my point.

While i am fully agree,that middleware output may not be good as "Native Rift Supported" Game and there can be Shadow and UI issues. but bigest benifite is one don't need to wait for developers to be convinced to re-tailor their game with RIFT SDK (ofcourse i m emphasizing on older good games)

For example we seen in past many people were advoacating Native 3D and No need of middleware.How many Native 3D 'AAA' games we really have from past 03/04 years? Number may be smaller enough to count on finger tips. If we count hardware independent and platform independent (not 3d only for particular hardware or on particular platform) true 3D (Not 2D+Depth) then mere 01 or 02. Can any one answer why?

A good Native 3D game i remember was UBISOFT's James Cameron's AVATAR - THE GAME, but sadly no one else come up with more such titles. Some released games either locked on AMD HD3D or on NVIDIA but not free hardware independent native 3D game.

What if such thing repeate with RIFT once its hype bubble burst after consumer release? What if developer become lazy enough to not to integrate RIFT SDK in their game? Can it be worth being totally at developer's mercy for your 'hard earned' cash invested hardware? Again i m not doubting lobbying power of Oculus Rift or Jhon Carmack or Raw Awsomeness of Rift but want to avoid faintest probabality.


There can be a Rating System Like NVIDIA where middleware developer can rate game for VR compatiblity so players can decide what to play and what not to play in VR. Those games which are not worth playing in VR can again be enjoyed in Giant Screen offered by RIFT in VRCinema Mode ( Very Few can afford playing their most beloved game in CINEMA HALL, its kind of a dream come ture!)

In increasing levels of immersive gameplay:

1: Large 2D screen
- Even though most Imax movies are in 2D, the huge scale of the screen still creates a sense of being there.

2: Large 3D screen
- 3D Vision or DDD like gameplay on a huge virtual screen. This is the next step in the chain of immersive gameplay for most games out there. Most of the problems with in game VR go away, but you're still left with an awesome immersive experience.

3: In game head tracking
- The obvious gold standard if it can be implemented correctly.

The middleware that can perform these functions will get my support, and if necessary, my money.

This is what i really want with good robust "Fully Functional,Fully Supported Middleware"

I m sure if any middleware maker follow all this,will make Win-Win Combination that can sail long way with Oculus RIFT.

[Bishop51]

I'm just going to re-post what I wrote from the other, similar thread:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While such drivers I think are great for 3D content in general, I would strongly disagree in the case of the Rift - I would prefer if consumers could only get natively supported games working easily.

Why? Non-supported games, made "compatible" with driver hacks, are not unlikely to suffer from one or more of:

• 3D depth issues [uncomfortable viewing]
• Rendering issues, eg shadow, reflection issues due to the introduction of roll (mice only do yaw/pitch) [uncomfortable viewing]
• Non-Rift compatible GUI [hampers gameplay]
• Potential headtracking issues [nausea]
• Latency [nausea]
• Control schemes unsuited for VR, eg no keyhole aiming [nausea/hampers gameplay]
• The game breaking the "laws" of VR, such as commandeering the player's headtracking, shaking/moving the screen [nausea]
• ...

Any combination of these effects are likely to cause the user to have an unpleasant (or, at minimum, non-optimal) experience. A 3D display with bad 3D is just a bit uncomfortable to look at; a title with bad Rift support can not only be uncomfortable to look at, but can also cause the user to feel really, REALLY ill. This would reflect very badly on the Rift, likely causing a lot of unnecessary bad press & bad reputation, and potentially hampering the future uptake of VR on the whole. Drivers frequently require extensive and time-consuming tinkering and tweaking with settings to achieve satisfactory performance in a game.

I'm not saying these drivers shouldn't exist, but frankly I only want to see them in the hands of expert users who fully appreciate what they're potentially putting themselves in for. Far from being a "must", I think these middleware items are potentially dangerous for the uptake of VR.

I agree 100% with all of the above. Perhaps it's developer bias but I think middleware has a significant potential for creating negative VR experiences for the general public. And that frankly is a dangerous thing to be doing this early in VR's sensitive rebirth.

The deeper we get into development on The Gallery: Six Elements, the more true the above reality becomes. There are so many subtle and not so subtle issues that need to be rethought completely in VR to create a satisfying experience. And by satisfying I mean rethinking game development in almost every way, to create a comfortable VR experience that can be endured without creating negative physiological, psychological fallout.

Seeing all these "lets play" videos on Youtube with games not designed for VR is extraordinarily painful to developers who are making content FOR VR. The public might be excited by those videos but in practice 99% of those games are deeply flawed in VR. No fault of the Middleware of course but the content just isn't designed for VR and generally shouldn't be played in VR. I would hate to see the public at large strapping on a headset and having an awful first experience with a game they have been led to believe is great in VR. Middleware is a fantastic tool for experimentation but its early popularity is caustic to the VR movement in my opinion.

[zacherynuk]

I'm just going to re-post what I wrote from the other, similar thread:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While such drivers I think are great for 3D content in general, I would strongly disagree in the case of the Rift - I would prefer if consumers could only get natively supported games working easily.

Why? Non-supported games, made "compatible" with driver hacks, are not unlikely to suffer from one or more of:

• 3D depth issues [uncomfortable viewing]
• Rendering issues, eg shadow, reflection issues due to the introduction of roll (mice only do yaw/pitch) [uncomfortable viewing]
• Non-Rift compatible GUI [hampers gameplay]
• Potential headtracking issues [nausea]
• Latency [nausea]
• Control schemes unsuited for VR, eg no keyhole aiming [nausea/hampers gameplay]
• The game breaking the "laws" of VR, such as commandeering the player's headtracking, shaking/moving the screen [nausea]
• ...

Any combination of these effects are likely to cause the user to have an unpleasant (or, at minimum, non-optimal) experience. A 3D display with bad 3D is just a bit uncomfortable to look at; a title with bad Rift support can not only be uncomfortable to look at, but can also cause the user to feel really, REALLY ill. This would reflect very badly on the Rift, likely causing a lot of unnecessary bad press & bad reputation, and potentially hampering the future uptake of VR on the whole. Drivers frequently require extensive and time-consuming tinkering and tweaking with settings to achieve satisfactory performance in a game.

I'm not saying these drivers shouldn't exist, but frankly I only want to see them in the hands of expert users who fully appreciate what they're potentially putting themselves in for. Far from being a "must", I think these middleware items are potentially dangerous for the uptake of VR.

I agree 100% with all of the above. Perhaps it's developer bias but I think middleware has a significant potential for creating negative VR experiences for the general public. And that frankly is a dangerous thing to be doing this early in VR's sensitive rebirth.

The deeper we get into development on The Gallery: Six Elements, the more true the above reality becomes. There are so many subtle and not so subtle issues that need to be rethought completely in VR to create a satisfying experience. And by satisfying I mean rethinking game development in almost every way, to create a comfortable VR experience that can be endured without creating negative physiological, psychological fallout.

Seeing all these "lets play" videos on Youtube with games not designed for VR is extraordinarily painful to developers who are making content FOR VR. The public might be excited by those videos but in practice 99% of those games are deeply flawed in VR. No fault of the Middleware of course but the content just isn't designed for VR and generally shouldn't be played in VR. I would hate to see the public at large strapping on a headset and having an awful first experience with a game they have been led to believe is great in VR. Middleware is a fantastic tool for experimentation but its early popularity is caustic to the VR movement in my opinion.

TIFTFY : "deeper we get into (*Alleged*) development"
j/k of course

I am a little disappointed with the reported/known uptake of remakes and re-hashes from known development houses, and official mods and official (perhaps buyable) DLC for older games. I imagine there to be an awful lot of devs wanting to be let loose on their old code but being forbidden from doing so.

Whilst I think that a VR designed game from the ground up would obviously be the best experience, I do also believe there is a vast array of older titles (Game play and story line ideas) which could meld to VR very well.

I do not want VR to be like other gaming industry fad-test - like when the industry discovered CD's and suddenly all plot, ideas and vision went out the windows for large graphics are poor background streaming. (With few exceptions of course) - that set back gaming 2 years. (Philips CDi, MegaCD, Commodore CDTV, et al) I think we have learned from that, but I do not want to abandon a very re-playable ~15 years of games development !


It all depends, I suppose on whether Oculus want to be the player or a player. I imagine setting up a licencing network and developing a great API, SDK and indeed middle ware partner program is the logical C21st route... For all we know they may close the system, patent the hell out of the hardware and attempt to take on MS, Sony, Nintendo and all the studios! It's a case of hedging, hoping & negotiating and I'm glad I don't have to be making the decisions for them!

[Dilip]

@Bishop51

Your project is beyond doubt amazing and cool and i wish every success to you.

While emphasizing on Middleware is just for Games Which are not natively supported and older games,i see no harm in implementing virtual theater mode if its rated by middleware as non compatible for VR. It can still be played in theater mode without head tracking won't it be a cool idea?

I am definatly looking forward for Native Supported Games but what in Case a Game u like a lot and its developer see no commercial value in updating it for Rift or Simply he is one who hates Stereo 3D (Chinese Game Room - Developers of Amnesia are indeed having Anti3D views) what about those titles.

[baggyg]

I think there is definitely a place for well worked middleware, but as said it really only should be in the hands of people who understand how it works and how to achieve the best result. The type of questions coming out of the Tridef beta certainly suggest there are a lot of users who are either not reading / not understanding the instructions. This create negative VR experiences.

However I would contend that this has always been the way with 3d. As a long time user of 3d vision I know a basic user should only stick with "3d ready" games. However for more advnaced users there is very good support in the likes of Helix mods etc to make games previously unplayable near 3d ready.

The difference with the Rift is that there must exist features to counteract some of the problems. Firstly there must be a system of being able to see the periphery of the screen when needed (VorpX squeeze method) for UI / menus. The headtracking should be easily customisable and responsive. There must be a customisable IPD feature. It should also be clear to the user that they are achieving 60fps and that anything lower will increase latency.

I am a fan of what tridef have achieved but only because I know it is a beta / experiment. I am very hopeful for enhancements and the arrival of vorpX. I know these solutions are right for me, but not right for everyone.

[Dilip]

I think there is definitely a place for well worked middleware, but as said it really only should be in the hands of people who understand how it works and how to achieve the best result. The type of questions coming out of the Tridef beta certainly suggest there are a lot of users who are either not reading / not understanding the instructions. This create negative VR experiences.

I really think there is learning curve to all new things. with Middlewares like Tridef which anyway require slight above average knowhow of computers its more prominent.

However I would contend that this has always been the way with 3d. As a long time user of 3d vision I know a basic user should only stick with "3d ready" games. However for more advnaced users there is very good support in the likes of Helix mods etc to make games previously unplayable near 3d ready.

People got to first read mannuals before tweaking or tinkering with settings again once you have little knowhow things get intresting faster.in reality you can't be James Bond to throw driving manual and jump at driver seat...that most of the time ends in disaster.

I am a fan of what tridef have achieved but only because I know it is a beta / experiment. I know these solutions are right for me, but not right for everyone.

May be not at this stage. Once consumer version is out and by that time Tridef might have completed BITA Phase and they Might upgrade to more mature code and user profiles scenario would be quite intresting.

[Dilip]

Update of Good News!
http://www.mtbs3d.com/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=73
Thats Nice progress i must say!!
Cheers!!!

[Dilip]

Here is the update from Ralf taken from the above link:

As promised a short update regarding the release date: it’s a matter of weeks now. Expect the first public beta before the end of September.

This version will be released as a paid beta for an introductory price of 40$ (US) / 35€ (rest of the world). A time restricted free demo will be made available shortly after the initial release.

Much work has been done in the last the few weeks, mostly based on feedback from the closed beta test. Expect a few new features and support for even more games. Especially the geometry mode received quite some attention in this regard, and works nicely with almost as many games as the Z-Buffer mode now.

Stay tuned. The wait will soon be over. And thanks for your patience!

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.p ... 6&start=80

Now we have one more middleware rolling out.i would love to know its performance review, but i don expect magic as for me 2D+Depth sucks as like Real 3d it has no immersion and it looks kind of fake due to shimmer around edge of main character when you increase depth. kind of letting down and not much depth if you want decent output.

[baggyg]

Here is the update from Ralf taken from the above link:

As promised a short update regarding the release date: it’s a matter of weeks now. Expect the first public beta before the end of September.

This version will be released as a paid beta for an introductory price of 40$ (US) / 35€ (rest of the world). A time restricted free demo will be made available shortly after the initial release.

Much work has been done in the last the few weeks, mostly based on feedback from the closed beta test. Expect a few new features and support for even more games. Especially the geometry mode received quite some attention in this regard, and works nicely with almost as many games as the Z-Buffer mode now.

Stay tuned. The wait will soon be over. And thanks for your patience!

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.p ... 6&start=80

Now we have one more middleware rolling out.i would love to know its performance review, but i don expect magic as for me 2D+Depth sucks as like Real 3d it has no immersion and it looks kind of fake due to shimmer around edge of main character when you increase depth. kind of letting down and not much depth if you want decent output.

I commend vorpX for giving the users the choice at least (Power3D was removed from TriDef). The news that the "real" 3d geometry mode is working a lot better is definitely positive.

[Fredz]

I commend vorpX for giving the users the choice at least (Power3D was removed from TriDef). The news that the "real" 3d geometry mode is working a lot better is definitely positive.

Where did you read that ? In that post from a week ago it seems it's still available : http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=18531

[baggyg]

I commend vorpX for giving the users the choice at least (Power3D was removed from TriDef). The news that the "real" 3d geometry mode is working a lot better is definitely positive.

Where did you read that ? In that post from a week ago it seems it's still available : http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=18531

To be clear I am only talking about the Tridef Oculus BETA, not general Tridef (SBS).
This was the latest comment from the official blog.
http://www.tridef.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... &start=108

[Fredz]

Ah ok, thanks for the info, I thought it was available out of the box for the Oculus Rift. Nice to see they are talking to Oculus VR btw.