Question 3D Orbiter support?

[crim3d]

My favourite topic!
If OGLA supports stereo-3D, keep in mind that HUDs need to be collimated to be useful, like in real life. I talked about that long time ago at the old forum, but it was long before 3D movies or 3D vision so it faded away unnoticed. That and the fact that not many people knows that you have to collimated light of real HUDs to be able to look at the simbology and the enviroment at the same time because most people only have seen computer games HUDs.

(I hope this post doesn't bother anyone, the thread is still high in the queue and this information is important in a development of graphical engines with stereo-3D capabilities)

 

[Pyromaniac605]

My graphics card supports 3D with both the old blue/red setup or the newer setup with the LCD flicker glasses.

Honestly if your card doesn't support 3D throw it in the trash for being old, maybe not but you should get a newer one.

Darren

Edit:

It will always be meh until we can do proper 3D without me having to wear additional glasses to see it. >.>

Actually there are screens like that but it looks more like a pop-out kids book than a 3D screen.
IMHO the glasses aren't a burden you get used to them after a while.
I saw Space Station 3D at IMAX with my school, the effects where great and the polarised glasses didn't annoy me at all.
In fact that movie is what got me playing Orbiter again.

Edit2: 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.

 

[Xyon]

My graphics card supports 3D with both the old blue/red setup or the newer setup with the LCD flicker glasses.

I think mine just does red/blue.

Honestly if your card doesn't support 3D throw it in the trash for being old, maybe not but you should get a newer one.

If you use that as your base measure for calculating the worth of a graphics card, I think you're making a mistake, but we could make a whole new topic out of that

Actually there are screens like that but it looks more like a pop-out kids book than a 3D screen.

Yeah, I've seen those, but never actually viewed one. I'll be sure to look into that one.

IMHO the glasses aren't a burden you get used to them after a while.

Eh, normally I wear contacts so I guess not, but while wearing prescription glasses already to see the screen adding a layer to enable 3D seems like added fuss.

I saw Space Station 3D at IMAX with my school, the effects where great and the polarised glasses didn't annoy me at all.
In fact that movie is what got me playing Orbiter again.

I saw Jurassic Park (the first one) in 3D the last time (or possibly the time before) the 3D fad came around. It was all red/blue glasses back then (Maybe even red/green o.o), and the tech was pretty static. Now with the capacity to broadcast higher-bandwidth television signals, and advances in screen technology as mentioned, you can have 3D at home. Maybe eventually all TVs will be 3D and I'll have even more reason to get rid of this old 32" CRT monster I have here, but I am strangely attached to this technology.

Edit2: 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.

I would like to see it stick around, or at least part of me would. My major problem with 3D is that it's always been a fad, as you say it's been around since at least the 80s in one form or another, but never really "stuck" per se. Maybe if it stuck around I might consider it a viable technology.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

I honestly don't know why 3D was popular in the 30's though, the movies would have been purple...

If I could afford it (which I can't) I'd have the biggest 3D TV available set up with my computer and a 3D Bluray player.

Darren

 

[crim3d]

I think that a 3D projector would be even better, despite the washed out colors compared to a TV. But talking of displays, the bigger the better.

 

[statickid]

i used to own a HMD that I got from a pawn shop. Actually I prefer the HMD but I'm kind of a geek :shifty: I never had the cables/programs to get it fully operational but it had gyros in the back so you could assign your head movements to a look function. I'm an 80's kid and I still want virtual reality junk! hahahah

 

[Mauler85]

stereo/3d has been around for years and years... imho 3d in movies is a passing fad that comes and goes every couple of decades, the novelty will wear off and become annoying eventually. Anyone remember jaws 3d? no?

Difference is now we have people like Jim Cameron realizing its not about poking people in the face its about making the world come alive. While I think AVATAR was just Dance's with Smurfs, He did a great job on the Visual part of the movie. The 3D wasn't LOOK WERE POKING YOU!!!!! Like in Friday the 13th 3D. It was used to show the Depth of the Jungles. 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)

 

[Jarvitä]

I can't see the 3d effects because my eyes are out of alignment and I can hardly see on my right eye. Letting my friends drag me to see a 3d movie was a headache-inducing experience, until I simply closed my right eye. :lol:

 

[Hielor]

Difference is now we have people like Jim Cameron realizing its not about poking people in the face its about making the world come alive. While I think AVATAR was just Dance's with Smurfs, He did a great job on the Visual part of the movie. The 3D wasn't LOOK WERE POKING YOU!!!!! Like in Friday the 13th 3D. It was used to show the Depth of the Jungles. 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)

I actually enjoyed Avatar more in 2D than 3D. I saw it twice in 3D and once in 2D (in that order).

I wear prescription glasses, so the bulky movie theater glasses are uncomfortable/annoying at best and severely distracting at worst--and those glasses are better for people like me than the ones you can get for home!

I found that the 2D version seemed more colorful and detailed than the 3D version--it actually ended up feeling like I had missed out on some of the experience of the movie by having watched it in 3D (especially since there are several scenes with very bright colors). Sure, in 3D you get a little bit of depth, but it wasn't worth losing the color/detail, IMO.

 

[JonnyBGoode]

I'm fairly sure eDimensional's 3D glasses work with Orbiter... actually, I'm dying to try a 3D docking (especially in an AMSO Apollo craft). I'm sure docking would be much easier with stereo vision.

 

[Wishbone]

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]

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]

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!)

...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...! :shifty:

...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. :lol:
(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. :lol:

 

[Hielor]

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

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


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

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

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]

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]

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.

:threadjacked:

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

 

[crim3d]

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]

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

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

 

[JonnyBGoode]

And Orbiter doesn't support directX9?

 

[orb]

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.