1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NVidia 3D Triples vs VR?

Discussion in 'Sim Racing Hardware' started by Esotic, Aug 9, 2016.

  1. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    I'm curious if anyone has tried both NVidia 3D and VR. I'm guessing NVidia 3D didn't take off much due to the expense, but I'm curious to hear what folks that have tried them both have to say. The few vids/reviews up on YouTube suggest that NV3D is pretty cool, and as someone that normally enjoys running multiple screens for coding and general computing it seems like a potential alternative to a VR HMD.

    Cheers,

    Dave\Esotic
     
  2. I can't comment on VR.....yet as I haven't gone there.
    But I do run triple 27s vs single 27 inch with nvidia 3d vision 2. I barely ever use my triples now as the added immersion in regards to depth beats a 2d triple monitor experience hands down.
    Every now and again I try going back to triple's in 2d, but it's just plain boring and well, flat. IMO the added feeling of depth kills it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    Any plans to try running 3d on triples? I'm wondering if a new gtx 1070/1080 could maintain proper frame rates at that resolution in Assetto Corsa.
     
  4. No triples in 3d vision 2 for me, unless someone gave me 2 additional 3d monitors for free.
    I think sim racing with head tracking via VR will be awesome. That's where I want to spend my money, just a bit dear currently.
     
  5. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    The VG248QEs (I already have one) are currently around $200 refurbed or $250 new, which would be a total expense of $600 or $750, which is pretty much in line with the cost of a VR HMD (rift or vive). VR is riding the hype train right now, and folks are obviously very pumped about it, but I'm a little curious why folks consider strapping a thing to your face better than 3D on triples that you can also use all the time, not just while gaming. I'm personally trying to make that decision (VR vs NV3D) for myself as well. :)

    Pretty sure my 750ti is not up to the challenge of VR or NV3D, so when I get around to upgrading my GPU I'll probably get the NV3D to see how I like it.
     
  6. Did a quick test for you... 1080 GTX with triples @1080p in AC on Mugello, 11 AI opponents in a couple different cars, all Ultra, no post processing effects. Lowest was 92 fps, but highest never reached 120 fps. I'm not sure what fps is required for the NV3D...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    Nice! and Thanks! I currently run my 750TI with everything turned all the way down so I can maintain fps during league races with 30 cars, so I'd be interested in knowing what the frame rates are with more minimal settings. It's possible the game is more CPU bound in those scenarios and 120fps with 30 cars is just not possible regardless of the GPU.
     
  8. Same track/cars: with settings on Low, AA=2x, minimum 120 fps through the start and up to 180 fps once I let the field get away due to watching the fps count, LOL.

    I'd not tried Low settings before in AC and was pleasantly surprised that they're not bad, pretty OK.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    Sweet!

    As an FYI, I overclocked my i5 from 3.2 to 4.2 and got a 27% bump in average fps on the AC benchmarking tool (88 to 112).
     
  10. but I'm a little curious why folks consider strapping a thing to your face better than 3D on triples that you can also use all the time,

    I think VR will immerse you in the cockpit, 3d vision 2 is enjoyable but wouldn't put you in the cockpit to the same extent IMO
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. I have not tried 3D so I cannot comment on what is better, 3D or VR. But with VR you are in the car and you look to your apexes. Only down side is that the resolution isn't where we would like to see it. But the immersion factors makes up for the lost resolution. I can try and describe VR until the cows come home. But the only way to experience VR is to try it.Once you have tried VR, then you will know why people such as myself happily and willfully are consuming the VR Koolaid. I don't mind wearing the large HMD and my earphones if it means feeling like I am actually in the car.

    Oh and last night I did a test race with my Vive in Project Cars at Nordschleife with 29 opponents plus myself where I purposely started last on the grid. I have the 1080 GPU with a number of graphics setting turned up and a few turned down or completely off. Not once in the two laps of this race did I experience any sort of problems with all those AI opponents. Well that's not true. Turn #1 was pretty sketchy. But besides the dive bombing kamikaze AI opponents, I experienced no problems regarding the VR HMD and frame rates with this large field on the Green Hell.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. I think this picture best explains it. CjibvkFWUAAJdvS.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    I like this pictures I found over here:
    http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=166516

    [​IMG]
    For sim racing the horizontal FOV is more relevant than the vertical FOV. Vertical FOV beyond seeing out the front windscreen is almost irrelevant. Detail in the distance with current HMDs is lacking.

    I don't want to seem like I'm anti-VR, cuz I think it's pretty cool, but I think everything has pros and cons. That said, most folks that try VR decide to sell their triples, but they haven't tried running them in 3D.
     
  14. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    What I really want is realtime mixed reality AR where I get to see my wheel and arms with a synthetic rest of the world. Something like an ultrawide fov 3d hololens.

    :p
     
  15. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    I was running some numbers:

    Rift is 1080×1200 per eye, 2.59 MegaPixels total at 90 FPS = 233 million pixels a second

    1920x1080 Triples is 6.2 MegaPixels total at 120FPS (for NV3D) = 746 million pixels a second

    1080 Ultrawide would push even more pixels than regular 1080P. I'm starting to get an idea why NV3D triples may be cost prohibitive. :)
     
  16. One separate display per eye is really 3D done right. No ghosting issues or anything.

    It´s much better then stereo3D. I did enjoy stereo3D a lot when I was on a CRT but on LCD the ghosting just got to much due to their slow response times and having to boost the backlit to compensate for the lightloss enhanced the clouding just about every single LCD monitor I ever owned suffer from more or less. When we get OLED monitors maybe stereo3D on regular monitors could be a hit again but that will be really expensive! and you still have the fact that you are reminded by the real world. Even if you have it pitch dark around you the monitor itselfs lights up and you can see some of what´s around you.

    As for augmented reality I don´t really need it for anything. Would be nice to see my real arms but think it would be hard to make it integrate perfectly with the virtual wheel. I don´t want to see my real wheel if I can hold a 2000$ F1 rim instead with all the whistles ;). Then I can switch to a 350 mm lorry wheel without spending a dollar.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Esotic

    Esotic
    Premium Member

    Seeing as how I can't stop researching my options before I spend my money, I was looking into the perceived/effective resolution of various display technologies.

    This post over here is suggesting that the rift (and thereby all the other HMDs of similar design) is about 11 pixels per degree (ppd):
    https://bakerdh.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/estimating-oculus-rift-pixel-density/

    My 24" 1080 monitor that sits 26" from my face is 43.8 PPD (or 4 times sharper).
    http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html

    A 34" 1440P ultrawide at 26" would be 55.3 PPD (5 times sharper).

    ""20/20" vision (or "6/6" in Europe) corresponds to being able to resolve details 1 arcminute in size, or 60 pixels per degree." I'm pretty sure "retina" displays are intended to be used at a distance that insures they are 60PPD or higher.

    All that being said, we can't currently get a 1440P UltraWide that runs at 120hz. :(

    Seeing as how I spend more time on my computer computing/coding/designing than sim racing I may still upgrade my monitor first and then wait and get a VR headset later. :)

    Cheers,

    Dave/Esotic
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Frank

    Frank
    Administrator Staff Premium Member

    I tried both, NV3D is nice, but it doesn't come close the the VR experience. The way you get immersed is unparalelled.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Strikeman

    Strikeman
    Premium Member

    Iv have owned a DK2 and now a CV1 and also tried nvidia3d vision and if what you are looking for is immersion then vr wins easy but if your a graphics kinda guy then because of the higher res sharper image then just stick with an 2d large ultra wide monitor until the vr hmds have higher res displays. 3dvision is just a toy compared to the 3d in vr.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. RC45

    RC45
    Premium Member

    I am still using my DK2 for AC and really enjoy the total immersion. Was the jump from DK2 to CV1 noticeably worth the cost?
     
    • Angry Angry x 1