Is a Nvidia 3DVision2 Monitor worth it until CV1? Advice plz

[deathpooldk2]

Hi guys I am gaming on a 3D TV and I hate it, therefore I have been gaming in 2D for more than a year now. I have the DK2 but that is not obviously ready for online AAA gaming...I am dying on the wait until CV1 is released and am very bored with flat screen gaming.

Is buying a 3D Vision2 monitor still worth it? Seeing as though new technologies are coming out including 4K TVs and HDMI 2.0, is buying a 3D Vision monitor now too short sighted? Should I wait for anything else?

I really want something to tide me over until CV1 and ease the wait. I am looking at buying the ASUS VG278HE monitoir. any advice please....I really want a change and I do not know when VR Direct will be released or if it will even be playable in a competitive multiplayer environment the way a 3d vision monitor can.

[RonsonPL]

It surely is worth buying, but...
- Nvidia doesn't give a ... about 3D Vision anymore 😞
- it's not working with many games and with many games it will never work. Luckily, there are tons of games where it works great
- competetive multiplayer you say? I don't think so. I play BF4, by no means on competetive level - I don't even have K/D ratio at 1.0 and I played a thousand hours in Battlefield online games, but even for me - 60Hz is a "no go". In 3D mode you are forced to use just 60Hz per eye. That will seriously lower your score in FPP shooters. I don't know about other genres.

My advice: buy. As long as it is Vision 2 (Lightboost AKA low persistence mode) you'll be very happy.
You just need to know a few things:
- sit as close to the screen as you can. No more than 50cm from 24", the less, the better
- adjust separation from default 20-30% to 70-80% after a few days of training your eyes/brain. Half an hour a day, for a week, and you should tolerate 80% with no problems. Immersion and "wow factor" is 100x bigger at 70% than at 20-30%
- learn to control convergence. Learn how much you can gain from setting it inproperly in cases, when you don't see a lot objects really close to your virtual eyes. Leaving a default setting might seem to give really poor 3D effect, very "flat", in comparison with the one with adjusted convergence. For example in Trine 2, you have some levels with not much things really close, and if you adjust to "break" the displaying of really close objects, you bring out the 3d depth difference of everything else, which on some levels means 99,999% of the scene.

By not doing this, you are likely to make a mistake of having 3D Vision and not even knowing what it is capable of.

[Darcanis]

I have the first version of 3D Vision, which works quite well, but not perfectly in all games as mentioned above. It seems Nvidia has shifted away from 3D Vision and towards VR. Not that it is a bad thing, but 3D vision exists now and VR is still a waiting game as to when CV1 will be announced.

I love playing Witcher 2 in 3D Vision as it is a perfect example of how 3D Vision should look!

Left4Dead 2 is really fun, but anyplace with water is messed up as the water doesn't play nice with 3D Vision in that game.

Really it is hit and miss as to what will and won't work now. Though strangely I must be one of the few out there that can play at 60hz and not have it affect my kill scores really. I play just as well as I do at much higher FPS (which tends to be in top 5 usually). Though anything under 40 I do suffer as the game usually lags too much to play multiplayer and single player gets annoying at 30 and below (Yeah you know who you are Metro! lol). Ideally though I like as high as possible just so I know when I hit an area where there will be a drop in FPS it won't go under 60 min.

To be honest I stopped using my 3D vision over a year ago as my card was not up to the task for games and my 3D Vision compatible projector died leaving me unable to even watch movies comfortably (it was sooooo cool watching things floating out of my 12' screen which took up an entire wall of my apt!). Sure I can watch on my monitor, but 3D movies need a big screen for full impact!

Now that I have a 970 I am not sure if I even want to go back after experiencing even the DK1. VR spoiled 3D gaming for me. lol Plus 3D monitors are not as nice graphically as the newer, cheaper, and much more energy efficient AH-IPS monitors from LG. At least I have yet to see a AH-IPS 3D Vision compatible monitor from any manufacturer as they tend to be TN panels. I've seen LG Passive 3D monitors which were IPS, but they were just for movies and games supporting LG's Dual Play technology.

Considering the cost of a 3D monitor I prefer the better picture and color of a AH-IPS which usually costs about half as much for same size screen. Do I miss it... yeah... but that's why everyday I wake up and scream "ANNOUNCE THE CV1 ALREADY!!!" at the ceiling.. sure the neighbors hate me, but hey... make an announcement already. lol

Just kidding about the screaming part... But I sure think it!

[RonsonPL]

Darcanis

Having a monitor without low persistence (Vision 1) explains, why you are so "anti-TN". And I get it. TN is a piece of s...
But even so, the clarity of the image in motion...
this is far more important, especially in 3D, when its allowing the 3D effect to be visible all the time, regardless of the movement speed. Go play Sine More, go run in Rayman Legends, drive through the forest in Pure - you'll understand why Vision 2 and low persistence is greatly improving the immersion and fun. 🙂
To some degree, you should have better motion clarity than normal LCD because of shutter glasses, but it will never give you really clean image in motion like backlight strobing does. Also - they promoted Vision 2 as a feature adding to the brightness, so the colors probably look better on Vision 2 than on Vision 1. I don't have a Vision 1 monitor for comparison, so I'm forced to just guess here.

As to the multiplayer and 60Hz vs. 120Hz. Go play Battlefield 4 and 3 settings:
1) 99% of the time 60fps
2) 99% of the time above 90fps
3) 99% of the time above 150fps

1 is what you are forced to use on 60Hz display

2 is what's needed to really feel the difference and judging by the fact, that 10 of my friends from my local PC forum, playing BF4, got persuaded and upgraded to 120Hz, and it's spreading because every single one of them doesn't want to go back to below 90fps ever again - everyone sees the difference. You even need to adjust your mouse sensitivity and learn to play again, because playing at 1xx fps means that you feel your mouse movements "free". You switch to 60fps and you immediately feel like someone is holding your mouse. I cannot explain it in words, you'd have to feel it for yourself, and you won't until you reach a certain level o frames per second. In BF4 it's starts at 90-100fps, and gets' perfect in 150fps. In Counter Strike, I saw people posting about 400-500fps at 120Hz mode to get the best results.

3 is allowing low persistence modes work well even when v-sync is disabled. That's why I play on 900p and low, even when my card allows for 1080p+ultra while not dipping below 50fps. At 150+fps in BF4, you get the image almost as good as with v-sync ON, which in low persistence mode means you see every single pixel during fast camera pans. For example I can turn my Little Bird (fast heli) and during this fast turning, I can spot a tiny soldier hiding behind a palm tree. This is not possible without low persistence and not possible with LP on but v-sync OFF while the framerate is below 150fps (in BF4 - it will be different in other games).

In other games it will vary, but mouse steering feels so much different in 60Hz vs. 120Hz, that it really makes no sense for me to play any online FPP game with 3D Vision.


As to your situation. First of all - were you here? http://helixmod.blogspot.com/
(go for a game list to see what's compatible)

I still have tons of older games to play, Shadow Of Mordor seems to be great, and the patch done by 3D enthusiasts is on its way. I don't see the reason to not use 3D Vision for a year. If any support for 3D in new games stopped now, I would have games to play for another 2 years.
Unfortunately you have newer generation Nvidia card - GTX9xx. Therefore you are forced to use newer drivers, and you cannot use "fake 3D" (AKA "we don't want to make games compatible, so let's make our job easier, and to hell with the gamers and their expectations"). It's still better than 2D, but in drivers newer than the may 2014 release, you cannot "hack" the default depth/separation. And some dumb idiot at Nvidia locked it at ultra low value. It hase 1-2cm on my 24" monitor. I play with 10cm. The difference is similar to playing a game on 15" laptop vs. playing on 100" screen.
Nvidia, again, is killing it's own 3D. I was using first 3D, for CRT monitors, back in the days. They threw it out of the window just like they're doing it now with 3D Vision 1 and 2 for LCDs. Oh how much I would like to see the person(-s) responsible for this kicked in the balls for this.
I really can't tell whether it's because they're dumb or they do it intentionally. Both reasons are beyond my comprehension. Why would any company do this to its costumers? And the most valuable ones - the ones that were buying expensive cards, SLI setups, 3 monitors, and the ones that were constantly talking about 3D to their friends and recommended Nvidia cards just because of 3D.
3D was good for Nvidia, 3D makes a huge difference for gamers, and yet they don't want to spend money even for a single employee working on 3D Vision for 2 day per month.
And that's not all. They actively piss off the helixmod community. For months, years maybe. After another driver version doing another step backwards (locking the fake 3D), after constantly braking the ability to work with helixmod pathes - the guys at Helixmod recentyl gave up. 😞
Also, after 6 months I was forced to stop dreaming about 3D Vision support for Windows 8.1 It might still be broken. It makes a horrible stutter (like 2fps, not a typo. TWO fps) and is happening on and off randomly - which makes using 3D impossible.

Nvidia is (censored;)).
And they would gladly turn away from VR too, if Oculus didn't succeed in 2017. Fortunately VR will conquer the world, I think, so Nvidia won't show, once again, their "fu.. you" attitude. Nvidia attitude.

Still - as a gamer to a gamer - I still recommend buying Vision 2 setup and monitor. And after playing on DK2 I agree that 3D effect is better in DK2, but overall image quality is far worse. Many games I prefer to play on 3D Vision than on DK2, not to mention that 1% of the games that work with 3D Vision, is working on DK2, and I don't want to buy VorpX.

[schmeltzer]

"Unfortunately you have newer generation Nvidia card - GTX9xx. Therefore you are forced to use newer drivers, and you cannot use "fake 3D" (AKA "we don't want to make games compatible, so let's make our job easier, and to hell with the gamers and their expectations"). "

I have 2 GTX680 's and have the latest (2014) drivers. In bioshock Infinite you get the horrbible fake 3D even with the Helix fix installed. However, you can disable fake 3D bij pressing CTRL-F11 and voila, glorious Helix 3D!!!

[RonsonPL]

But you cannot disable it in games where there is no way to get proper or even usable 3D.
for example:

The Crew
Trials

And you either use older drivers + a registry hack to alter the separation/depth, or you use 3D that is a mere shadow of itself. At something similar to setting 10% on the separation slider in 3D Vision panel, this is worthless.
I was talking with the person that made the fix/hack. He checked and confirmed - you NEED to use older drivers or say bye-bye to anything even close to normal 3D.

I tried The Crew with normal 3D, but it has serious artifacts. Besides that - the world looks great, you really want to exlore, to drive and admire the view.
Switched to 2D - blahh..
Switched to fake 3D - almost as bad as 2D. Still "blahh", because of the separation blocked at ridiculously low value. :evil:

I cannot believe how stupid Nvidia is, when I see such things. What in the hell was the reason to block the separation at such unusable value?
Well, I actually know. Beginners in 3D need training. You cannot just set big separation/depth when you use 3D Vision for the first time, or you'll get a headache quickly.
So in order to bend for casuals and 3D ignoramuses, Nvidia f..d up the experience for those people who now how to enjoy it properly.
But why in hell did they even block the only workaround? What casual uses registry changes?




edit:
You can see our conversation about the issue here:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/768807/3d-vision/guide-how-to-enable-depth-buffer-fake-3d-i...
But when I was going to get you the link, I noticed a new post, saying that depth change is still blocked in newest drivers, but the depth default value for fake 3D increased! God, I really hope that's true. Fingers crossed! I'll test it in the evening and report back.
I really hope it's a significant increase, since I plan to have GTX9xx some day.

[schmeltzer]

I don't think I understand what you mean. But is this what you mean?:

With the latest drivers you can no longer hack the registry to get more depth. But in the latest version Nvidia set the default depth higher.


---------------------------------------------------
My personal thoughts about 3D failing:

I don't blame Nvidia giving up on 3D. Most people think that 3D movies and 3D gaming is the same and therefore won't even bother to try. You have no idea (or maybe you do 😄 ) how many discussions I had with people telling me they hate 3D gaming and that it should die, while they have NEVER EVER played or seen a single game in 3D.

I think it's cooler to say that you hate 3D then that you like 3D. For most people being cool is really important :roll: .

[RonsonPL]

You understand right.
And of course I can imagine. I've had hundreds of such discussions myself. : 🙂
I succeeded to change some people point of view on 3D and persuaded some to buy a 3D monitor and 3D glasses. I even lent my hardware to my local forum members, just to give them an occasion to see for themselves what 3D offers.
I'm an 3D evangelist, you might say, and I'm proud of it.

And about Nvidia - they should have actively promote good 3D and focus on the difference it offers in comparison to crappy 3D seen in cheap TVs, but most importantly, then shouldn't actively spoil the efforts of 3D enthusiasts, which they did 3 times now.

[cybereality]

Personally, I think it's worthwhile. There are glitches here and there with certain features (i.e. shadows, full-screen shaders, etc.) but overall a lot of games will work. Especially if you like playing slightly older games, they usually have good support. The 3D picture quality on a decent 1080P+ screen is really nice. And the 3D really "pops".

Of course, it's not VR and it's not the same experience has playing with the Rift. I don't really see them as competitors, they're two different things. I do love VR a lot, but there is not the same selection of titles available for the Rift versus what you can play with 3D Vision. So I think it is fine to own both.

[RonsonPL]

I hope Rift will quickly become so popular, that every game, older or not, would support it as a 3D display device at least.
Especially 2160p Rift in the future should do nicely displaying a virtual rounded 200" TV with perfect 3D capabilities.

For me it's like turning on the colors in monochromatic movies/games. I think every one should be compatible. It's not THAT hard, really. Helix community and others proved that many times. I mean - there are games that are officially not 3D compatible, and won't even work with 3D enabled, at all, and after a small fix, it's almost 100% of things being displayed correctly. There is so much games that could be turned into awesome 3D on the Rift with not that big (and not that expensive) efforts. I really think it will happen in next 3 years or sooner. Games from 2002 can be awesome in perfect 3D. Even that old. 🙂
Just try Mafia or Painkiller.