The Number One Resource For Stereoscopic 3D Excitement!
https://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/
Are the left and right viewpoints rotating around a common centre (between and slightly behind the two), or is each viewpoint rotating around it's own centre?cybereality wrote:The head-tracking roll causes a strange distortion.
Each viewport is moving around its own center, but thats not the problem. The issue is with the aspect ratio. Because of the way I am adjusting it, it becomes stretched when its rotated. So everything looks fine when you are level-headed. But if you roll 90 degrees, then the objects becomes twice as tall. I noticed a similar problem with the Vuzix driver on some games (UT2004, for example) so maybe it is just a limitation of this method. But I will see what I can do, maybe there is a solution.EdZ wrote:Are the left and right viewpoints rotating around a common centre (between and slightly behind the two), or is each viewpoint rotating around it's own centre?
While it may not be ideal, is it correct to assume that a one-frame delay has an unintended positive side effect of not affecting game frame rate in any meaningful way?cybereality wrote:@polipluff: Mirrors Edge looks pretty good. The only problem is I couldn't get convergence working, but otherwise its fine. Skyrim is mostly working except for the shadows (you have to turn them off). Both games need some work for the headtracking, but I should have that finished soon.
No question a game specially made for the Rift will look and play better than what I am doing here. One problem is how I am rendering stereo which creates a 1 frame delay between the left and right image. You also need to turn vertical-sync off, so you may get some tearing as well. The head-tracking roll causes a strange distortion. Pitch and yaw are using mouse emulation, so will have additional lag than if it were directly controlled in the engine. Though even with all this, its still a playable experience and hopefully I can fix these things over time.
Well you are cutting the frame-rate in half like this. So you will have to turn v-sync off and hope you can run at 120FPS+ else it may look choppy.Mel wrote:While it may not be ideal, is it correct to assume that a one-frame delay has an unintended positive side effect of not affecting game frame rate in any meaningful way?
There is a 2D mode, I just need to make a button in the interface to turn it on. Right now you have to edit an XML file which is not ideal (but not that hard either).Mel wrote:Will your driver have the option to turn off 3D?
Ah, so you are deferring the presentation of the SBS frame until you've intercepted and processed two consecutive frames?cybereality wrote:Well you are cutting the frame-rate in half like this. So you will have to turn v-sync off and hope you can run at 120FPS+ else it may look choppy.Mel wrote:While it may not be ideal, is it correct to assume that a one-frame delay has an unintended positive side effect of not affecting game frame rate in any meaningful way?
There is a 2D mode, I just need to make a button in the interface to turn it on. Right now you have to edit an XML file which is not ideal (but not that hard either).Mel wrote:Will your driver have the option to turn off 3D?
Do you have to fix it for each engine separately or is it a general problem to be fixed centrally?cybereality wrote:The roll works fine on 3D modes that use the full aspect ratio (basically anything except the Rift). But since I am altering the aspect ratio for the Rift, this messes up the projection matrix. I may be able to fix this, but I haven't spent a lot of time looking into it.
Each engine (or game) has custom code to make it work, but if I found a solution in one game it would not be difficult to port it to the other games. I've just had a lot of stuff going on the past few weeks and did not have time to work on the driver. Should be free this holiday weekend, so I will be dedicating a good amount of time on fixing up this last issues.topas wrote:Do you have to fix it for each engine separately or is it a general problem to be fixed centrally?
As far as i understand your work: it has to be done for each engine, correct?
Like most AAA games, far cry 3 has been in development for years. Initially I was not impressed, but after seeing how it copies elements of RPG's like skyrim and assasin's creed, I am quite happy and think it will be worth buying for 30 bucks during the steam summer sale, hehe.bobjwatts wrote:With all the decent reviews I'd love to see Far Cry 3 added sometime in the new year.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/far-cry-3
I've been wanting to climb the tower in the beginning of this video with the Rift ever since I first watched it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXVuF3I ... re=related
Would be a great demo and maybe a good way to cure my vertigo.
Since you are making a SBS image from two consecutive frames (resulting in a modest temporal shift betwixt each half of the SBS), then instead of deferring the display of a frame until you've built both halves, could you not maintain full frame-rate simply by keeping a running buffer upon which you render alternating left/right frames and displaying the frame on a one-to-one basis with the game's frame-rate? If this is what you're already doing, then I guess I'm failing to see how this could halve the frame-rate.cybereality wrote: Well you are cutting the frame-rate in half like this. So you will have to turn v-sync off and hope you can run at 120FPS+ else it may look choppy.
You could only do this if the display could output at double your intended both-views resolution, i.e. if you wanted 60fps 3D, your display would have to update at 120fps. Additionally, you'd still be duplicating one eye image for two frames:Mel wrote:cybereality wrote:Since you are making a SBS image from two consecutive frames (resulting in a modest temporal shift betwixt each half of the SBS), then instead of deferring the display of a frame until you've built both halves, could you not maintain full frame-rate simply by keeping a running buffer upon which you render alternating left/right frames and displaying the frame on a one-to-one basis with the game's frame-rate? If this is what you're already doing, then I guess I'm failing to see how this could halve the frame-rate.
Code: Select all
1:[A][X]
2:[A][Y]
3:[B][Y]
4:[B][Z]
Code: Select all
1:[A][X]
2:[B][Y]
Roger. More to it that I thought. And the wobble effect would be unpleasant, to say the least.EdZ wrote:You could only do this if the display could output at double your intended both-views resolution, i.e. if you wanted 60fps 3D, your display would have to update at 120fps. Additionally, you'd still be duplicating one eye image for two frames:Mel wrote:cybereality wrote:Since you are making a SBS image from two consecutive frames (resulting in a modest temporal shift betwixt each half of the SBS), then instead of deferring the display of a frame until you've built both halves, could you not maintain full frame-rate simply by keeping a running buffer upon which you render alternating left/right frames and displaying the frame on a one-to-one basis with the game's frame-rate? If this is what you're already doing, then I guess I'm failing to see how this could halve the frame-rate.Whereas with 60fps display, you'd get:Code: Select all
1:[A][X] 2:[A][Y] 3:[B][Y] 4:[B][Z]The only functional difference being that each eye get's it's image 1/120th of a second faster. You are still showing a temporally offset stereo pair in either case, but if you start mix-and-matching stereo pairs you could end up with objects that should be moving smoothly appearing to wobble backwards and forwards (i.e. towards and away) as their stereo separation increases and decreases. If you keep to a set temporal offset, you'll only get a single wobble when an object changes from moving right to left (or vice versa).Code: Select all
1:[A][X] 2:[B][Y]
The 'half the framerate' figure is because Cyber's driver does not have the low-level access that nVidia's does, so cannot take advantage of using existing geometry (or whatever) calculations shared between left and right eye views, so each eye is rendered entirely independently. nVidia (and ATI) can 'cheat' somewhat to get better performance and synchronised views with less than a 100% increase in rendering load.
This is basically what I am doing. I'm still updating at the full frame rate, but only one half of the screen at once (alternating each frame). This is roughly equivalent to cutting the frame-rate in half. I think I could fix this eventually, so it works more like the existing 3D drivers. This would be a little more complicated and will not make it in there for the launch though.Mel wrote:Since you are making a SBS image from two consecutive frames (resulting in a modest temporal shift betwixt each half of the SBS), then instead of deferring the display of a frame until you've built both halves, could you not maintain full frame-rate simply by keeping a running buffer upon which you render alternating left/right frames and displaying the frame on a one-to-one basis with the game's frame-rate? If this is what you're already doing, then I guess I'm failing to see how this could halve the frame-rate.
I've seen reports that there is a Rage level demo being displayed with the Oculus. Hopefully they will release an official patch for this. Considering Doom 3 has it its not too much of a stretch to imagine it will get supportAlkapwn wrote:Has anyone mentioned Rage yet? Would be super sick to play that one on the Rift. And it's also on sale right now on Steam's Fall Sale for $12 >.<
As far as I know, Carmack was using that as his test bed. But I think he created a level specifically to test the Oculus Rift, so it's completely removed from the rest of the game. I think he said he also had to test/change a bunch of things in order to make it easily playable. And to do this for the whole game would be too much work.baggyg wrote:I've seen reports that there is a Rage level demo being displayed with the Oculus. Hopefully they will release an official patch for this. Considering Doom 3 has it its not too much of a stretch to imagine it will get supportAlkapwn wrote:Has anyone mentioned Rage yet? Would be super sick to play that one on the Rift. And it's also on sale right now on Steam's Fall Sale for $12 >.<
Ahh, fair enough - its down to cybereality thenAlkapwn wrote:As far as I know, Carmack was using that as his test bed. But I think he created a level specifically to test the Oculus Rift, so it's completely removed from the rest of the game. I think he said he also had to test/change a bunch of things in order to make it easily playable. And to do this for the whole game would be too much work.baggyg wrote:I've seen reports that there is a Rage level demo being displayed with the Oculus. Hopefully they will release an official patch for this. Considering Doom 3 has it its not too much of a stretch to imagine it will get supportAlkapwn wrote:Has anyone mentioned Rage yet? Would be super sick to play that one on the Rift. And it's also on sale right now on Steam's Fall Sale for $12 >.<
I currently play a lot of games with nvidia 3D vision and rage didnt support it at all. Makes me think that the game engine doesnt lend itself to steroscopic views. May be a tough nut to crack if Carmack isnt doing it.Yeah, that should be possible. I just didn't look into it much once I had something working.Owen wrote:Why not just set the viewport rectangle to half the screen? Few games modify the viewport so it should work pretty well.
Ah, thanks. I hoped running the games at 640*800 @ 120 fps would be enough.cybereality wrote:@Valez: I am rendering at the full resolution (ie 1280x800) and then squishing it toward half the screen. This has the result of a sort of ghetto anti-aliasing.
So you're rendering at 1280x800, but with a double-wide pixel aspect ratio (so each frame looks horizontally stretched if you viewed it in the framebuffer)? Is this just a limitation of the DirectX hook you're using allowing you to modify the FoV, aspect ratio, and camera position, but not framebuffer size? I'm not too hot on the mechanics of graphics rendering, but I am curious.cybereality wrote:@Valez: I am rendering at the full resolution (ie 1280x800) and then squishing it toward half the screen. This has the result of a sort of ghetto anti-aliasing.
So will you be breathing in the wide open tropical expanses of Far Cry 3...?cybereality wrote:Yes. The Rift delay certainly gives me more time to breathe.
Thats good to hear Cyber.cybereality wrote:Yes. You can shift the image.