[Suggestion] Add low possible max depth to top level list.

[andysonofbob]

Hi

I notice that games with limited popout effects are penalised but what about games with limited depth? I reckon games where the max possible depth is <25% as per 3D Vision depth rating ought to be included on the top level section. I understand people are happy to game in low depths but at what point is a low depth too low. At what point must 3D depth be so low as to become 2D? The game's engine should be able to handle high depths as well as low right?

Case in point: Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I would say the max depth avaliable in that game, with 3D Vision is about 10% depth as per 3D Vision's wheel. That is actually uncomfortable to play with for someone like me who like depth and a little popout.

What do you think?

Andy

[Neil]

Can you share some screenshots exemplifying the depth flexibility you are looking for? Use MTBS' gallery with SBS images - then link to them here in the forum so everyone can see them in 3D (there is stereoscopic 3D BBCode supplied by the gallery images now).

Regards,
Neil

[andysonofbob]

Bit of cutting and pasting...

I have loaded DE:HR and applied its max depth and convergence settings (in game menu). I have then screenied it so you can see the separation at the distant building - the skyscraper about 150 - 175m from you (at least)? I have then taken another game, Bulletstorm, tried to find a building the similar distance. I have then lowered the depth in Bulletstorm to what seems similar. Look at the two distant(ish) buildings in DE:HR and Bulletstorm screenies. I lowered the Bulletstorm depth to around 12%.

Actually, looking at the screenies now, I think the relative distance to the building in Bulletstorm is about 75 - 100m from you - just around the corner in fact! Quite a bit closer than the skyscraper in DE:HR. So I needed to lower the depth further still!

Do you see what I mean? DE:HR's max depth is simply too low for me to play now. If the 3D depth is so weak it surely must be taken into consideration into GG3D.

[stimg url=http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... n_game.jpg]http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... n_game.jpg[/stimg]

[stimg url=http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... 5depth.jpg]http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... 5depth.jpg[/stimg]

[Neil]

Hi Andy,

I edited your message slightly so it shows the 3D images. In the gallery, once the images are uploaded, there is a function called "Show BBCodes" under each individual picture. When you select this, there is a BBCode option for stImage (stereo image). Just copy and past it as is to your forum post, and voila! 3D!

Regards,
Neil

[Neil]

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming!

What would a reasonable level of separation to work with be? Can you share some images to demonstrate a good example?

Regards,
Neil

[andysonofbob]

Cool thanks.

It is a trick to come up with a measurable lower limit but that shouldn't matter, games without enough depth are rubbish. I make no apologies for the emotive language. I would say the game should be able to achieve > 1/4 of the space between the eyes separation for objects approx 200m from your relative position.

For the following screenies I have set convergence to screen depth. I would say the large round bush to the right of the forward truck is about 200m from the camera.

[stimg url=http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... 5Depth.jpg]http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... 5Depth.jpg[/stimg]
This game happily handles depth and is in fact probably a little too high. 105% where 100% is perfect for my eye spacing.

[stimg url=http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... 5Depth.jpg]http://www.mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/us ... 5Depth.jpg[/stimg]
This, is I would say, is the very minimum for a acceptable game's max depth. The bush is about 1/4 of distance of my eye spacing.

I know it is hard to quantify but frankly I am suprised I am having to justify this issue. Seriously? The screenie of DE:HR I have provided is the max depth the game allows using 3D Vision. This is not good enough. If I bought a low depth game because it scored highly on GG3D I would have no faith in it what so ever.

edit
Where's the home button of these pages? The nav button at the top of the page returns you to the hub of the section you are on. Is there a button that takes you to mtbs3d.com?

[cybereality]

Yeah, I have brought this up before (namely with my review of SF4). Some games could have no visual glitches, but only provide a shallow 3D experience that is not enjoyable. So I totally agree with what you are saying. This is also a problem with "3D Vision Ready" games that lock out the convergence, but luckily there is a question about that in GG3D.

[Neil]

I just love the 3D pictures in the forum. It just makes everything look super cool! These forums should be FILLED with images like this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSWBuZws30g[/youtube]

Anyways, the only concern I would have with a depth level expectation is a safety factor. I've seen gamers share pictures which have obvious divergence problems, and the companies putting these games out probably don't want to be the cause of problems like the above (Google "Opti-Grab" or see the movie "The Jerk"). Can you think of a reasonable way to describe enough depth without undermining safety?

Regards,
Neil

[Fredz]

I think you can't assume "real" distances in these scenes to get meaningfull points of comparison if the objects are closer than infinity. It's because of toyification, games can be rendered at a different scale than the real one, so the bush in one of your examples - which should be at around 200m in real life as you said - may be placed at a much closer distance depending on the scale of the scene (like 30cm or 1m for example).

So I think the best way to mesure the max % allowed separation would be to measure the distance in pixels between two points at near infinity (ie. sun, moon, clouds, etc.), which in theory shouldn't vary with the scale of the scene (assuming the sky is really rendered at infinity by the game).

Doing this for your 4 screenshots and considering a 22" 16/10 ViewSonic VX2268wm 3D monitor - which I think is the one you own - it gives the following values for separation :
- WarGame 12 (1440x900) : 37 pixels - 1.22 cm - 18.73% (6.5cm eye sep)
- WarGame 100 (1440x900) : 189 pixels - 6.22 cm - 95.68% (6.5cm eye sep)
- Deus Ex (1680x1050) : 35 pixels - 0.99 cm - 15.18% (6.5cm eye sep)
- Bullet Storm (1680x1050) : 35 pixels - 0.99 cm - 15.18% (6.5cm eye sep)

The 12% you selected in the 3D Vision settings would correspond to a 8.22 cm eye separation for 100%.

To answer Neil question about safety values for depth, you can take into account the recommandations made by NVIDIA on their 3D Vision KB page :
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/ ... -distances

They consider the 3 main types of displays (monitors, TVs, projectors) and give for each one a suggested setting for depth percentage in regard to display diagonal :
- monitors : 15-40%
- TVs (57") : 45-83%
- TVs (73") : 35-65%
- projectors (80") : 60-90%
- projectors (120") : 40-60%
- projectors (130") : 37-55%

The ranges are very different depending on the viewing conditions, so there is not a single value that can be used to determine safety for depth percentage.

So you can treat locked depth just like locked convergence (ie. present/not present) or have a penalty percentage depending on the max percentage depth that can be set. Another option could be to add something like "not suited for a [3D monitor | 3D TV | 3D projector] based on the NVIDIA recommandations.

[Guig2000]

Nice game choice, andysonofbob, I'm on the French growing team BPT (Burning Phoenix Team). Maybe you saw some of us sometimes.

[andysonofbob]

@ Fredz
Your method would make alot more sense. Brilliant breakdown as well.

@ Guig2000
A great game. This is what World in Conflict should have been like. I have only just got it TBH, literally on 4th mission on SP. When I am brave enough to go dabbling in MP (which seems awesome) I will keep my eyes open for the BPT!

@ Neil
I think every game needs to be able to produce a minimum level of 3D separation for it to qualify as playable in 3D. This is Game Grade 3D, not Game Grade 2D.

Forgive this analogy:
If I could barely hear through my noise cancelling headphones a piece of music because it was too quiet - I would never give it a high rating even if it was produced to the very highest fidelity. Some people enjoy loud music, some quiet. There comes a point where the decibels are too low for even those who enjoy quiet music to hear.

This low depth issue seems to only effect those games handling 3D natively. The Trine 2 devs said they were quite suprised how much depth people liked when they first released T2. OilRush was a joke for the first 3 months. DE:HE and Crysis 2 - nuff said. Two Worlds 2 still has horrid popout only 3D.

With regard to the H&S issue. You told me the audience for submitting for GG3D were not 3D amateurs; this is rightly so for the sophistication of testing. But this being the case I wouldn't let H&S issues affect GG3D contributors bar the obligatory, 'Stop if you feel uncomfortable' etc statements. Also, where's the concern over popout then? Surely too much popout separation is as bad as too much depth separation...

Maybe have a mixture of quantitive and qualitive statements. E.g. How would you describe the extent of the 3D depth? Ample; Ok but would like more; not enough. Only quantify the not enough statement. The game fails if depth seperation does not exceed a certain amount of pixels or whatever. The other two (potentially H&S worrying ones) are descriptive only.

[Neil]

Hi Guys,

Sorry for the late reply. Reading the previous posts, we need something that is very simple to use, and isn't bound or defined by any single brand.

I think the way to do this is frame it as visual percentage of the actual horizontal screen size. This means the judgement isn't set by some driver defined number or a formula that is difficult to understand. Instead, it goes according to how far apart the images are as seen by your naked eyes (glasses off). I have to experiment a bit to see what the magic number is, but it could be something like "Can the images separate by at least 5% of the horizontal screen space or more"?

Still have to think about it - this has to be 100% measurable, and can't go by feeling or guesswork.

Regards,
Neil

[andysonofbob]

Hi Guys, Sorry for the late reply.

Not as late as this one.

I like that idea ("Can the images separate by at least 5% of the horizontal screen space or more"?). Screen size might need to be taken into account.

You should make sure there is a linear object on screen to see the increase of convergence with depth - like the screenshot of the game with the road above.

[Convergence]
The same must be done for convergence.

I know people like Avatar but I simply cannot adjust the settings so that my character is rendered behind the screen. (I am yet to be proved wrong) It's really uncomfortable for me, having the character poping out so much - in fact I gave up playing because of it. That's how much I struggled; I couldn't play the game! Lowering the depth lessened the popout (obviously) but I shouldn't have to do that.

Surely a game needs to be penalised for this too.

[andysonofbob]

Sleeping Dogs has very well implemented 3D. Shame about the depth. The max depth is about 1/3 of nVidia's 100% depth. Too low for many 3D gamers

Now I am reluctant to enter it to GG3D because it will get Platinum. It astonishes me how a game would get top award despite the low level depth. No matter how high fidelity a music system is, it shouldn't score well if you can't hear it. As a result I can't morally submit the review.

I know I know, you can submit a subjective score but it takes too many clicks to see that and you don't see the subjective score on the logo the game could claim...

Andy

[Neil]

I don't mind adding a depth level indicator, but we need to figure out how to indicate this in a clear way. We can't just say not enough depth, and not be able to express what that means. Is it in physical inches between left and right views? Is it an estimated percentage of screen space (5%)? Come up with some ideas, and I can implement it.

Regards,
Neil

[Fredz]

I suppose there is only the Nvidia 3D Vision driver that is limiting the depth. If that's the case you could set always 100% for other drivers (like TriDef) and set the max depth you can get when using 3D Vision compared to its max value (in this case 33%). Then you'd need to find a corresponding penalty on the score that makes sense, you could start a survey in a forum thread for that.

[andysonofbob]

I don't mind adding a depth level indicator, but we need to figure out how to indicate this in a clear way. We can't just say not enough depth, and not be able to express what that means. Is it in physical inches between left and right views? Is it an estimated percentage of screen space (5%)? Come up with some ideas, and I can implement it.

Regards,
Neil

Agreed. I think Fredz idea was objective. I have only used a 23" monitor so I don't know how separation translates on larger monitors. I also only know how nVidia implement depth and their scales. How depth translates across monitor sizes needs to be applied. Once we know the seperation for different monitor sizes you should be able to factor that into GG3D's database so it automatically guides the reviewer accordingly.

For a control I propose we use nVIdia because I know the drivers scale relative to monitor size and use Just Cause 2 for its long draw distances and popularity with 3D gamers. I have chosen a position which isn't the max draw distance but it sufficient to allow the game to show depth and shows a linear path. The reviewer should find a place with a large draw distance with a linear object, where possible. [To prevent game which are 2D but pushed into the 3D plane passing, the separation at the nearest point needs to be recorded too, where zero or negative separation automatically passes.]

I have attatched screenies [feel free to jazz them up Neil!] showing location taken, 100% depth, minimum depth allowed without penalties and 20% at which point the game should fail out right - lowest GG3D score.

[Guig2000]

It's simple: if the max depth setting does not allow to have a long distance object separated at about 6 cm, and simultaneously a close object cannot be set to pop-up or at screen depth, the game should be penalized.

Of course some people have small monitors, others have a 2 meters surface projection. But it don't matter. It's the real effect on the user monitor/projector which matter. If he can't achieve a 6 cm separation even on his 12'' monitor, the game have to be penalized.

[andysonofbob]

I suppose there is only the Nvidia 3D Vision driver that is limiting the depth. If that's the case you could set always 100% for other drivers (like TriDef) and set the max depth you can get when using 3D Vision compared to its max value (in this case 33%). Then you'd need to find a corresponding penalty on the score that makes sense, you could start a survey in a forum thread for that.

Hello mate.

Sleeping Dogs, Crysis 2, Deus Ex:HR etc, all the games with low depth/dodgy convergence issues are controlled by in game renderers, not 3D Vision. That's the problem: clueless developers. If the 3D depth could be controlled by 3D Vision drivers etc, there wouldn't be a problem with depth/convergence values.

[andysonofbob]

It's simple: if the max depth setting does not allow to have a long distance object separated at about 6 cm, and simultaneously a close object cannot be set to pop-up or at screen depth, the game should be penalized.

Of course some people have small monitors, others have a 2 meters surface projection. But it don't matter. It's the real effect on the user monitor/projector which matter. If he can't achieve a 6 cm separation even on his 12'' monitor, the game have to be penalized.

+1

Could a similar thing be used for convergence, say a minimum of -3cm separation or any ingame object?

[Fredz]

Sleeping Dogs, Crysis 2, Deus Ex:HR etc, all the games with low depth/dodgy convergence issues are controlled by in game renderers, not 3D Vision. That's the problem: clueless developers.

It seems the depth and convergence can both be configured to higher values in the DisplaySettings.XML file of the Data folder. But if you modify it there you shouldn't modify it in the game else it'll go back to its max value (10). Someone using a 27" monitor said that setting 25 for depth and convergence was quite optimal for him.

[andysonofbob]

It seems the depth and convergence can both be configured to higher values in the DisplaySettings.XML file of the Data folder. But if you modify it there you shouldn't modify it in the game else it'll go back to its max value (10). Someone using a 27" monitor said that setting 25 for depth and convergence was quite optimal for him.

Mate!

That's it! I actually tried that but because I was happy with convergence I edited the depth value. I tested the results using the benchmark which zooms around the city. I cranked the depth up 100 at one point and didn't notice any difference. Though I do recall thinking begrudgingly, that Sleeping Dogs' max setting of 10 provided plenty of convergence.

Guess what...

Square Enix have depth and convergence the wrong way round - d'ah!

Brilliant 3D!!! It deserves the platinum it will likely get on GG3D.

[Guig2000]

Indeed, in sleeping dogs, they swapped convergence with depth.
Someone say to set the convergence (named Option3DDepth in sleeping dogs) to 2 and separation (named Option3DConvergence in sleeping dogs) to 30, for a 24'' monitor.
Apparently, f you use more than "2" as convergence, you will have depth conflict with subtitles during cinematics.

[Neil]

I was sent a copy of this game yesterday, so if I have any time today, I'll give it a quick test to see what you are talking about as far as depth limitations. Fan Expo starts tomorrow, so I'm going to be very busy the next few days.

When coming up with a depth expectation standard, is it at all possible to have a depth flexibility measure that can be seen with the glasses off? For example, I always adjust my 3D settings with the glasses off so I can see exactly what I'm doing, the separate/convergence relationships, etc. To account for screen size, maybe a percent of screen space would be a good measuring stick to go by. What do you think? What percentage of screen space would be reasonable?

Regards,
Neil