Question 3D Orbiter support? - Page 3 - Orbiter-Forum

Wishbone · 10-21-2010, 09:49 PM

re: 3D in Orbiter - the potential is amazing, mostly for atmospheric low-level flights.

On docking, mixed emotions. Relying on stereo vision in zero-g may be tricky, I personally almost always (with the exception of AMSO) do docking through the MFD. It is so easy to get out of axial alignment or mistake up for down that having range, range rate, attitude, offset, offset rate numbers is much more important than relying on one's senses.

JonnyBGoode · 10-21-2010, 10:01 PM

I'm thinking it would be much, much easier to judge your alignment using the reticule on the LEM if you had some spatial depth perception there. And that's how they did it old school, lol.

River Crab · 10-22-2010, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyromaniac605

Now with the more advanced technologys rather than the colours used during the 3D booms of the 30's (purple movies anyone?) and the 80's I sure hope 3D is here to stay.

Hey! What about the 90's? (Red Alarm, anyone?)

（My god, I must be the only person who still plays this!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mauler85

...I tried the game and I think It would have been more fun in 3D(which it was but hey people steal from the Library)

Well, don't look at me...!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wishbone

...It is so easy to get out of axial alignment or mistake up for down that having range, range rate, attitude, offset, offset rate numbers is much more important than relying on one's senses.

When I was young and clueless, and didn't know about NAVs, I learned to dock using the Force.

(Then, of course, I read the manual.)

Anyway, I still think proximity operations with another spacecraft would be the greatest enhancement that 3d has to offer, and really the only unique one from 3d in flight sims (especially given Orbiter's reasonable lack of surface detail relative to most flight sims). Except for looking at the solar system in 3d, and pretending you're a Celestial or something.

**Hielor** · 10-22-2010, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by River Crab

Hey! What about the 90's? (Red Alarm, anyone?)
{image}
（My god, I must be the only person who still plays this!)

Well, don't look at me...!

When I was young and clueless, and didn't know about NAVs, I learned to dock using the Force.

(Then, of course, I read the manual.)

Anyway, I still think proximity operations with another spacecraft would be the greatest enhancement that 3d has to offer, and really the only unique one from 3d in flight sims (especially given Orbiter's reasonable lack of surface detail relative to most flight sims). Except for looking at the solar system in 3d, and pretending you're a Celestial or something.

The problem is that in reality, binocular vision only provides depth clues out to ~20feet or so because the human eyes are so close to each other. If you're seeing any binocular 3d effect at all on the scale of the solar system, then it's being exaggerated by the program and isn't "realistic" for the purposes of space flight. For visualization purposes, sure it would be cool and make sense, but for flying, not really...

River Crab · 10-22-2010, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hielor

The problem is that in reality, binocular vision only provides depth clues out to ~20feet or so because the human eyes are so close to each other. If you're seeing any binocular 3d effect at all on the scale of the solar system, then it's being exaggerated by the program and isn't "realistic" for the purposes of space flight. For visualization purposes, sure it would be cool and make sense, but for flying, not really...

Well, exactly. In the grand scheme of things, the solar system is tiny, and comprehension of this is difficult for humans. That's why you'd have to be a celestial, with eyes several AU apart.

So yeah, not for flying. Not that stereo vision is needed to comprehend the universe, but still. It's better for Celestia, actually- is that possible?
Well, that's off topic.

**Izack** · 10-22-2010, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by River Crab

Well, exactly. In the grand scheme of things, the solar system is tiny, and comprehension of this is difficult for humans. That's why you'd have to be a celestial, with eyes several AU apart.

It becomes apparent on a much smaller scale than that. The Apollo astronauts reported being able to see the S-IVB panels as if they were up close even several hours after they had been jettisoned (and tens of kilometers away.) Like Hielor said, stereo depth perception is only accurate to around 20 feet. At larger distances, the brain relies more on atmospheric distortion to gauge distances (IE faraway things look faded or bluish). The lack of atmosphere in space obviously makes this little feature useless, and things which are even hundreds of kilometers away will be sharply defined.

You can go back to whatever it was you were talking about earlier now.

crim3d · 10-22-2010, 09:23 AM

The same way displays are in color because we are sensible to colors, so displays should be stereo because we have two eyes. Two me is not an extra little feature. It just allows me to use my eyes the way they are meant to. We could also fly without color or even more, without graphics, just numbers. But everything is a lot better with colorful graphics.

Althought it's not useful for long distances (no help for docking, sorry), far objects are no longer over the surface of the screen, but far beyond into the screen. In fact the effect is like if there were no screen anymore. After several years of 3D gaming seeing the cockpit and the enviroment at the same depth (the screen) seems completely weird and wrong.

JEL · 10-23-2010, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGoode

I'm fairly sure eDimensional's 3D glasses work with Orbiter.

Their driver doesn't. It only supports directX9 and newer.

JonnyBGoode · 10-24-2010, 07:53 PM

And Orbiter doesn't support directX9?

**orb** · 10-24-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGoode

And Orbiter doesn't support directX9?

Not yet. Orbiter's built-in graphics use DirectX 7, and the D3D9Client for non-graphics Orbiter is currently in alpha stage of development.

**rstr** · 11-25-2010, 06:09 AM

Hi.
True 3D with NVidia shutter glasses is already is working with the D3D9 beta client !

Just run the Orbiter_NG with the D3D9ClientBeta1 on a HighEnd GTX480 system with NVidia3DVision shutter glasses. The NVidia 3D driver automatically renders every scene twice, for left and right eye, provided there is a DX9/10/11 environment (see developers section on http://developer.nvidia.com/object/3d_stereo_dev.html) - no other change needed.
View is not at all comparable with the limited old red/blue stereoscopic glasses, as the shutter glasses transmit full color / full resolution images at 60 Hz (120 Hz monitor required). Just ran the Orbiter ISS scenario, with the ISS popping right out of the screen while drifting before our turning blue marble earth. No comparison to the already fine pseudo-3D standard display in Orbiter. You wouldn't believe what an impressive sight this "real" 3D is, unless you've seen the initial sequences of 3D movie Avatar with that space freighter drifting before Pandora. And all this just because of the D3D9 client for Orbiter-NG !!! Great work that should be supported. See appropriate thread http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=18431&page=1

Regards - Robert S. / Berlin
My contributions so far: Apollo Sounds at Dan Steph's Orbiter Page: http://orbiter.dansteph.com/index.php?disp=d

HarvesteR · 06-13-2011, 04:56 PM

I've had the eDimensional glasses... they're ok I guess, but nowhere close to a perfect all-in-one solution for 3D...

Now nVidia has come out with their 3D vision kit, which I've tried out, and it does look great...

But the hassles of stereo 3D still apply, you still have to wear glasses, which for me is a big dealbreaker, since it will never feel natural if you have to strap stuff to your head...

And the Nvidia kit REQUIRES a monitor that can do 120hz... which is something most monitors don't do. So you'd have to get yourself new monitors... and if your on a Triple Head setup like me, that's even worse, since you'd have to get 3 new monitors, and that's provided Matrox will one day come up with a Triple Head device that supports 120hz...

Big no no, still...

I've heard Zalman has come up with a new monitor called TriMon, which is supposed to do lenticular 3D. No glasses required. It works like one of those cards you twist around and the picture animates... IDK how well it works though...

And about 3D in movies, well, it depends on the theater really... if they know how to do it right, provide big, comfortable glasses,, compensate for brightness loss, calibrate the convergences and all the works, it will look very good. If not (as is the case in the theater we usually go to here), then it's a waste of money...

The other day we went to see Pirates of the Caribbean in 3D, and felt a little ripped off... The movie doesn't gain anything from being in 3D, and you have to pay extra for a 3D movie... plus, the projectionists apparently didn't read the manual, and didn't compensate for brightness loss... the result, a dark movie in which you had to wear glasses to see something that would have looked better without.

I does look like a fad... and one that's wearing off at that.

Cheers

crim3d · 06-28-2011, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarvesteR

...
I've heard Zalman has come up with a new monitor called TriMon, which is supposed to do lenticular 3D. No glasses required. It works like one of those cards you twist around and the picture animates... IDK how well it works though...
...

I have the Zalman. It uses polarized glasses similar to those you wear on the theater with the RealD system. It's a great stereoscopic display and the glasses are a lot more confortable than those bulky shutter-glasses.
I also have a 3D projector. It uses shutters, which for me is a drawback compared to the Zalman, but stereo in a 80" screen it's simply amazing, the closest thing to reality I have experienced by now.

I've tried Orbiter with the latest release of the D3D9 client but stereo doesn't work (3d vision driver, I'm yet to try the iz3d driver). I don't know why it's happening. :-/
By the way, Orbiter looks fabulous with this client. Great job!

**jarmonik** · 06-28-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crim3d

I've tried Orbiter with the latest release of the D3D9 client but stereo doesn't work (3d vision driver, I'm yet to try the iz3d driver). I don't know why it's happening. :-/
By the way, Orbiter looks fabulous with this client. Great job!

It should work but only in a true fullscreen mode. You need to uncheck the "fullscreen window" from the video tab.

Dkakaur · 10-10-2011, 06:32 AM

Guys! I need your help!
Could you tell me how can I run Orbiter in Split-screen stereo.
This is very important for me

10-22-2010, 12:34 AM	#35
River Crab SpaceX Cheer Captain	Quote: Originally Posted by Hielor The problem is that in reality, binocular vision only provides depth clues out to ~20feet or so because the human eyes are so close to each other. If you're seeing any binocular 3d effect at all on the scale of the solar system, then it's being exaggerated by the program and isn't "realistic" for the purposes of space flight. For visualization purposes, sure it would be cool and make sense, but for flying, not really... Well, exactly. In the grand scheme of things, the solar system is tiny, and comprehension of this is difficult for humans. That's why you'd have to be a celestial, with eyes several AU apart. So yeah, not for flying. Not that stereo vision is needed to comprehend the universe, but still. It's better for Celestia, actually- is that possible? Well, that's off topic. Last edited by River Crab; 10-22-2010 at 12:40 AM.

11-25-2010, 06:09 AM	#41
rstr Donator	It's working already ! Hi. True 3D with NVidia shutter glasses is already is working with the D3D9 beta client ! Just run the Orbiter_NG with the D3D9ClientBeta1 on a HighEnd GTX480 system with NVidia3DVision shutter glasses. The NVidia 3D driver automatically renders every scene twice, for left and right eye, provided there is a DX9/10/11 environment (see developers section on http://developer.nvidia.com/object/3d_stereo_dev.html) - no other change needed. View is not at all comparable with the limited old red/blue stereoscopic glasses, as the shutter glasses transmit full color / full resolution images at 60 Hz (120 Hz monitor required). Just ran the Orbiter ISS scenario, with the ISS popping right out of the screen while drifting before our turning blue marble earth. No comparison to the already fine pseudo-3D standard display in Orbiter. You wouldn't believe what an impressive sight this "real" 3D is, unless you've seen the initial sequences of 3D movie Avatar with that space freighter drifting before Pandora. And all this just because of the D3D9 client for Orbiter-NG !!! Great work that should be supported. See appropriate thread http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=18431&page=1 Regards - Robert S. / Berlin My contributions so far: Apollo Sounds at Dan Steph's Orbiter Page: http://orbiter.dansteph.com/index.php?disp=d Last edited by rstr; 11-25-2010 at 06:21 AM.

10-10-2011, 06:32 AM	#45
Dkakaur Orbinaut	Orbiter in 3D-STEREO Guys! I need your help! Could you tell me how can I run Orbiter in Split-screen stereo. This is very important for me

Quick Links	Need Help?
About Us Register to Participate Orbiter Website Orbiter Download Projects Recommended Addons Orbit Hangar Mods Photo Gallery Social Groups External Links	Did you forget your password? Rules & Guidelines Frequently Asked Questions Orbiter F.A.Q. Orbiter Tutorials Orbiter IRC Chat Search Forum Site Map Contact Us Mark Forums Read

10-21-2010, 09:49 PM	#31
Wishbone Clueless developer	re: 3D in Orbiter - the potential is amazing, mostly for atmospheric low-level flights. On docking, mixed emotions. Relying on stereo vision in zero-g may be tricky, I personally almost always (with the exception of AMSO) do docking through the MFD. It is so easy to get out of axial alignment or mistake up for down that having range, range rate, attitude, offset, offset rate numbers is much more important than relying on one's senses.

10-21-2010, 10:01 PM	#32
JonnyBGoode Sky Marshal	I'm thinking it would be much, much easier to judge your alignment using the reticule on the LEM if you had some spatial depth perception there. And that's how they did it old school, lol.

10-22-2010, 12:09 AM	#33
River Crab SpaceX Cheer Captain	Quote: Originally Posted by Pyromaniac605 Now with the more advanced technologys rather than the colours used during the 3D booms of the 30's (purple movies anyone?) and the 80's I sure hope 3D is here to stay. Hey! What about the 90's? (Red Alarm, anyone?) （My god, I must be the only person who still plays this!) Quote: Originally Posted by Mauler85 ...I tried the game and I think It would have been more fun in 3D(which it was but hey people steal from the Library) Well, don't look at me...! Quote: Originally Posted by Wishbone ...It is so easy to get out of axial alignment or mistake up for down that having range, range rate, attitude, offset, offset rate numbers is much more important than relying on one's senses. When I was young and clueless, and didn't know about NAVs, I learned to dock using the Force. (Then, of course, I read the manual.) Anyway, I still think proximity operations with another spacecraft would be the greatest enhancement that 3d has to offer, and really the only unique one from 3d in flight sims (especially given Orbiter's reasonable lack of surface detail relative to most flight sims). Except for looking at the solar system in 3d, and pretending you're a Celestial or something.

10-22-2010, 12:19 AM	#34
Hielor Defender of Truth	Quote: Originally Posted by River Crab Hey! What about the 90's? (Red Alarm, anyone?) {image} （My god, I must be the only person who still plays this!) Well, don't look at me...! When I was young and clueless, and didn't know about NAVs, I learned to dock using the Force. (Then, of course, I read the manual.) Anyway, I still think proximity operations with another spacecraft would be the greatest enhancement that 3d has to offer, and really the only unique one from 3d in flight sims (especially given Orbiter's reasonable lack of surface detail relative to most flight sims). Except for looking at the solar system in 3d, and pretending you're a Celestial or something. The problem is that in reality, binocular vision only provides depth clues out to ~20feet or so because the human eyes are so close to each other. If you're seeing any binocular 3d effect at all on the scale of the solar system, then it's being exaggerated by the program and isn't "realistic" for the purposes of space flight. For visualization purposes, sure it would be cool and make sense, but for flying, not really...

10-22-2010, 01:11 AM	#36
Izack Non sequitur	Quote: Originally Posted by River Crab Well, exactly. In the grand scheme of things, the solar system is tiny, and comprehension of this is difficult for humans. That's why you'd have to be a celestial, with eyes several AU apart. It becomes apparent on a much smaller scale than that. The Apollo astronauts reported being able to see the S-IVB panels as if they were up close even several hours after they had been jettisoned (and tens of kilometers away.) Like Hielor said, stereo depth perception is only accurate to around 20 feet. At larger distances, the brain relies more on atmospheric distortion to gauge distances (IE faraway things look faded or bluish). The lack of atmosphere in space obviously makes this little feature useless, and things which are even hundreds of kilometers away will be sharply defined. You can go back to whatever it was you were talking about earlier now.

10-22-2010, 09:23 AM	#37
crim3d Orbinaut	The same way displays are in color because we are sensible to colors, so displays should be stereo because we have two eyes. Two me is not an extra little feature. It just allows me to use my eyes the way they are meant to. We could also fly without color or even more, without graphics, just numbers. But everything is a lot better with colorful graphics. Althought it's not useful for long distances (no help for docking, sorry), far objects are no longer over the surface of the screen, but far beyond into the screen. In fact the effect is like if there were no screen anymore. After several years of 3D gaming seeing the cockpit and the enviroment at the same depth (the screen) seems completely weird and wrong.

10-23-2010, 03:06 AM	#38
JEL Addon Developer	Quote: Originally Posted by JonnyBGoode I'm fairly sure eDimensional's 3D glasses work with Orbiter. Their driver doesn't. It only supports directX9 and newer.

10-24-2010, 07:53 PM	#39
JonnyBGoode Sky Marshal	And Orbiter doesn't support directX9?

10-24-2010, 08:02 PM	#40
orb O-F Administrator	Quote: Originally Posted by JonnyBGoode And Orbiter doesn't support directX9? Not yet. Orbiter's built-in graphics use DirectX 7, and the D3D9Client for non-graphics Orbiter is currently in alpha stage of development.

06-13-2011, 04:56 PM	#42
HarvesteR Orbinaut	I've had the eDimensional glasses... they're ok I guess, but nowhere close to a perfect all-in-one solution for 3D... Now nVidia has come out with their 3D vision kit, which I've tried out, and it does look great... But the hassles of stereo 3D still apply, you still have to wear glasses, which for me is a big dealbreaker, since it will never feel natural if you have to strap stuff to your head... And the Nvidia kit REQUIRES a monitor that can do 120hz... which is something most monitors don't do. So you'd have to get yourself new monitors... and if your on a Triple Head setup like me, that's even worse, since you'd have to get 3 new monitors, and that's provided Matrox will one day come up with a Triple Head device that supports 120hz... Big no no, still... I've heard Zalman has come up with a new monitor called TriMon, which is supposed to do lenticular 3D. No glasses required. It works like one of those cards you twist around and the picture animates... IDK how well it works though... And about 3D in movies, well, it depends on the theater really... if they know how to do it right, provide big, comfortable glasses,, compensate for brightness loss, calibrate the convergences and all the works, it will look very good. If not (as is the case in the theater we usually go to here), then it's a waste of money... The other day we went to see Pirates of the Caribbean in 3D, and felt a little ripped off... The movie doesn't gain anything from being in 3D, and you have to pay extra for a 3D movie... plus, the projectionists apparently didn't read the manual, and didn't compensate for brightness loss... the result, a dark movie in which you had to wear glasses to see something that would have looked better without. I does look like a fad... and one that's wearing off at that. Cheers

06-28-2011, 07:43 AM	#43
crim3d Orbinaut	Quote: Originally Posted by HarvesteR ... I've heard Zalman has come up with a new monitor called TriMon, which is supposed to do lenticular 3D. No glasses required. It works like one of those cards you twist around and the picture animates... IDK how well it works though... ... I have the Zalman. It uses polarized glasses similar to those you wear on the theater with the RealD system. It's a great stereoscopic display and the glasses are a lot more confortable than those bulky shutter-glasses. I also have a 3D projector. It uses shutters, which for me is a drawback compared to the Zalman, but stereo in a 80" screen it's simply amazing, the closest thing to reality I have experienced by now. I've tried Orbiter with the latest release of the D3D9 client but stereo doesn't work (3d vision driver, I'm yet to try the iz3d driver). I don't know why it's happening. :-/ By the way, Orbiter looks fabulous with this client. Great job!

06-28-2011, 11:57 AM	#44
jarmonik Beta Tester	Quote: Originally Posted by crim3d I've tried Orbiter with the latest release of the D3D9 client but stereo doesn't work (3d vision driver, I'm yet to try the iz3d driver). I don't know why it's happening. :-/ By the way, Orbiter looks fabulous with this client. Great job! It should work but only in a true fullscreen mode. You need to uncheck the "fullscreen window" from the video tab.