02-21-2007, 01:12 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cell Block 17
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
New Ways to See Games in 3D
|
|
02-21-2007, 01:33 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I....need...this....so...bad
|
|
02-21-2007, 05:19 AM | #3 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I really dig this product description though: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
02-21-2007, 07:25 AM | #4 | |
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tampon, FL
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
kinda like 'his criminal record was a laundry list of felonies. from arson to rape, this guy had done the lot of it' |
|
|
02-21-2007, 08:08 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Well chat in virtual worlds is pretty much the same as adventuring in a virtual world, they don't have a very wide scope there...
|
|
02-21-2007, 12:06 PM | #6 |
A Very Sound Guy!
Fortress Forever Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times
|
omg now i can play second life properly!
why not just render a stereo image on a dual headed video card and display those? real 3d would need ingame support from altering the perspective to produce the stereo image in the first place. |
|
02-21-2007, 12:10 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Second life's graphics will fit right at home with your 640x480 resolution display =D What's with Second Life though, I don't see the appeal. It's got a clunky movement system, terrible graphics and everything takes ages to load in it, especially LOD textures. You sit there forever until it downloads the high res versions of the textures...
|
|
02-21-2007, 12:34 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
02-21-2007, 03:53 PM | #9 |
A Very Sound Guy!
Fortress Forever Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times
|
what i mean though, it that true 3d perspective would stick the "camera" in a slightly different position for each eye. ie, in HL2 the eye locations would probably be +-1 unit from where the current eye position is now.
|
|
02-21-2007, 04:47 PM | #10 |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
640x480 is fine for something that is right next to your eye... and especially if its a small lcd.
|
|
02-21-2007, 11:41 PM | #11 |
A Very Sound Guy!
Fortress Forever Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times
|
i thought it was the other way around? thats why big screens can have bigger pixels and still look as good
|
|
02-22-2007, 02:42 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Nope, think about it. If you use a larger screen with a smaller resolution the pixels get larger and you lose definition. Everything gets boxy and less sharp. That is why standard cable looks horible on a brand new fancy pants huge HDTV.
|
|
02-22-2007, 03:56 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Fully iWear 3Dâ„¢ compliant and supports NVIDIA stereo drivers Sounds like the video card support is already there for creating the stereo images. |
|
|
02-22-2007, 04:03 AM | #14 | |
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
2.5-inch display 320 by 240 pixel resolution Though I'm still wondernig how that would work out in-game. This is what kills it for me, though: a 32 degree field of view That would make most games unplayable, wouldn't it? I mean, 90 is bad enough compared to regular human vision, 32 would be like having blinders on either side of your face. |
|
|
02-22-2007, 07:13 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
02-22-2007, 09:06 AM | #16 |
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
800X600 looks acceptable on my 17" monitor (not good true, but acceptable), i imagine the screens in those are around 1". A basic knowledge of maths will show that a resolution that high on a screen that small will be more than sufficient.
|
|
02-22-2007, 10:19 AM | #17 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Yeah 640x480 should be enough but referring to it as high-res is a bit strange...
|
|
02-22-2007, 11:35 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New Jersy, USA! reppin'
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
resolution is based on depth i believe. i think because the pixels are concentrated makes it seem more like HD then regular displays what were used to
|
|
02-22-2007, 01:19 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
02-22-2007, 11:33 PM | #20 | |
A Very Sound Guy!
Fortress Forever Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|