New Ways to See Games in 3D

[o_deadly furby]

I need some new glasses

here's more info

[o_skull]

I....need...this....so...bad

[o_agret]

I really dig this product description though:

The VR920’s twin hi-res displays mean that it can flaunt your favorite virtual worlds in full 3D.

Featuring 640x480 VGA progressive scan LCDs

Also,

The VR920 will completey change the plethora of massively multiplayer applications from World of Warcraft to internet chat in virtual worlds

I'm pretty sure WoW isn't played solely for the chat aspect...

[o_skanky butterpuss]

Originally Posted by Agret

I'm pretty sure WoW isn't played solely for the chat aspect...

from WoW to internet chat in virtual worlds


kinda like 'his criminal record was a laundry list of felonies. from arson to rape, this guy had done the lot of it'

[o_agret]

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...

[mervaka]

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.

[o_agret]

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...

[o_ghost]

Originally Posted by Mervaka

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.

I had a pair of 3d shutterframe glasses a few years back. It actually worked pretty well with RTCW. It would generate the stereo image on the fly on your monitor. I would think these would do a better job and produce a better picture since you won't get the flicker you get with shutterframe glasses.

[mervaka]

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.

[o_docwolfe]

640x480 is fine for something that is right next to your eye... and especially if its a small lcd.

[mervaka]

i thought it was the other way around? thats why big screens can have bigger pixels and still look as good

[o_ghost]

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.

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by Mervaka

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.

You must have missed this bit:

Fully iWear 3D™ compliant and supports NVIDIA stereo drivers

Sounds like the video card support is already there for creating the stereo images.

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by DocWolfe

640x480 is fine for something that is right next to your eye... and especially if its a small lcd.

Yeah, that's pretty good resolution for a little LCD. Compare that to an iPod Video's specs:

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.

[o_agret]

Originally Posted by Mervaka

i thought it was the other way around? thats why big screens can have bigger pixels and still look as good

Although CRTs can stretch the image LCDs have a native resolution, anything below the native resolution is upscaled (pixels stretched, i.e. a 640x480 image on a 800x600 display would have pixels two times their normal size) and thus detail is lost (think resizing an image to 200% in an image editor), they definately don't "look as good" :P They look far worse.

[o_streeteh]

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.

[o_agret]

Yeah 640x480 should be enough but referring to it as high-res is a bit strange...

[o_nuk3m]

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

[o_ghost]

Originally Posted by Agret

Yeah 640x480 should be enough but referring to it as high-res is a bit strange...

It's high res for such a small screen.

[mervaka]

Originally Posted by Agret

Although CRTs can stretch the image LCDs have a native resolution, anything below the native resolution is upscaled (pixels stretched, i.e. a 640x480 image on a 800x600 display would have pixels two times their normal size) and thus detail is lost (think resizing an image to 200% in an image editor), they definately don't "look as good" :P They look far worse.

thats totally not what i'm getting at....