Have any of you guys compared 3D on a 120hz CRT vs LCD?

The acer here looks pretty sweet - it's got a 2ms response time so the ghosting shots look acceptable, about what my CRT does.

http://3dvision-blog.com/acer- ... ion-ready-monitor-review/

As for projectors, well I've had one in a dedicated light controlled room with truly capable sound and I *loved* it for movies. Never bothered with it for games though. Hell I've since moved house and can now build my all out dream theater. Something along the lines of a 16x8ft scope screen and approx sixteen 15" drivers in an infinite baffle sub . I couldn't afford a 3D PJ to light up that sized screen though. Don't even know if I can afford a 2D PJ to light up that sized screen.

Anyway 2d or 3d I still won't use it for race simming, because, when set up right, a 22" screen can appear to be huge when used with 3D glasses - and if you want bigger, just sit closer. Sitting too close will compromise the resolution though, so IMHO, the perfect 3D monitor would be a 40" scope screen with 4-16 times the current HD resolution. I'd sit with it about 1-1.5 ft from my eyes.

I'd also imagine that a 3D PJ would still have those scanning issues, at least with an LCD PJ. Or is there something special about a PJ where it avoids the scanning issue?

BTW BBT were you planning on a dedicated gaming PJ or something for both movies and games? Were you going for 3D PJ?

Well if you are splashing out and buying 1 3D Projector, may as well buy three...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocDMNX9KlY8

And for what it's worth, one 40" screen does not provide large enough scale/size for the large FOV (>140) required for true immersive racing. Just saying.
<< 40" at 145 FOV... crap

Wth? 145FOV?
On my 23" I use 90FOV.. used to have 95FOV on 20" when I played without S3D.

One note though - the further you sit from monitor, the better 3D effect appears.

When im racing in 3D i cant concentrate enouth and i gibe horrible laps
is this only me?

Well, dunno.. it did take me a bit to get properly used, but it's much better in S3D.
Especially with close racing, as it's much easier to notice distance between your car and one close to you.

Just a hint: take it easier... drive slower to drive faster

Is anyone rich enough to have used a TH2G or SoftTH with *three* 3D screens?

Quote from Crashgate3 :

Is anyone rich enough to have used a TH2G or SoftTH with *three* 3D screens?

Considering LFS can't use multiple threads, using Core i7 980X or something like that won't help (I suppose).

Don't need the TH2G or anything like that now; nVidia's drivers support 3 3D monitors innately using SLi. It's called 3D Surround and was enabled in the drivers recently. From what I understand the multi-monitor implementation is much better than EyeFinity.

Quote from JasonJ :

And for what it's worth, one 40" screen does not provide large enough scale/size for the large FOV (>140) required for true immersive racing. Just saying.
<< 40" at 145 FOV... crap

It all comes down to how close you sit to the monitor. 40" would take up almost your entire field of view at a 1-2 ft viewing distance

But I think a curved screen would help with perspective distortion etc.

Anyway the point is that what is needed is super high resolution in a mid sized screen. When correctly set up, 3D allows you to sit as close as you like to the screen. Kind of like a VR headset.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Don't need the TH2G or anything like that now; nVidia's drivers support 3 3D monitors innately using SLi. It's called 3D Surround and was enabled in the drivers recently. From what I understand the multi-monitor implementation is much better than EyeFinity.

That sounds expensive, but it's nice to know one could do it.

Quote from zapz :

It all comes down to how close you sit to the monitor. 40" would take up almost your entire field of view at a 1-2 ft viewing distance

You would think so.... but actually it doesn't. Only about 60 degrees. IMHO full imersive racing can only be achieved with something at least 145 degrees, which doesn't work on even a large single monitor. You need the peripheral field of view filled up so you have to turn your head if you really want the perfect solution. Like the Red Bull simulator

Sorry for a slight off topic, but someone? said the perfect 3D screen would be 40" and I beg to differ, that's all I wanted to say. I have 40" set to about 85 degrees FOV and still I always feel it is never enough (width) even in anaglyph 3D, I still don't feel immersed. Also you cannot get it (LCD) as close as 1.5 ft because the wheel is sitting there -and your arms I might add, to mount it there you would have to look upwards all the time. (Mines about 60cm away) A projector doesn't have this problem.
3x 3D 40" screens would be close to perfect 'cept for bloomin' bezels, gah!

Good luck BBT with the new projector, even with only one you should be able to get some serious FOV and a large enough screen to feel motion sick.

Are there any affordable consumer head mounted displays out with good field of view yet?

AFAIK, one of issues HMD's still suffer from is low resolution.

So Jason, does your 40" monitor work in 3D with LFS? I read somewhere that the 120hz HD TV's didn't work with PC's in 3D. Hope I'm wrong about that, I'd love to have a 32-40" 3D screen on the PC.

I'll concede your point that you need a bigger screen for full immersion. But to do something like that, in 3D, correctly is a huge expense, even without the motion simulator, and I'd say you'd get 90% of that with a single screen with smaller FOV and one of those IR head tracking devices. We're talking about < $1K USD for something like that and less than $600 if you're willing to use a smaller screen (24").

As for the wheel getting in the way... well you just put the screen in front of the wheel and turn of the virtual wheel & driver animations. Of course you'd need a really hi-res screen (which does not exist) to pull off sitting so close.

Anyway this was about a single PJ vs a single monitor and I still don't see any advantage for the PJ (when using 3D) at current HD resolutions.

When I get the new home theater up and running, I'll try it out with LFS. Should be something to experience even in 2d.

BTW thanks for the red bull link, that was cool to watch

Quote from JasonJ :

You would think so.... but actually it doesn't. Only about 60 degrees. IMHO full imersive racing can only be achieved with something at least 145 degrees, which doesn't work on even a large single monitor. You need the peripheral field of view filled up so you have to turn your head if you really want the perfect solution. Like the Red Bull simulator

Sorry for a slight off topic, but someone? said the perfect 3D screen would be 40" and I beg to differ, that's all I wanted to say. I have 40" set to about 85 degrees FOV and still I always feel it is never enough (width) even in anaglyph 3D, I still don't feel immersed. Also you cannot get it (LCD) as close as 1.5 ft because the wheel is sitting there -and your arms I might add, to mount it there you would have to look upwards all the time. (Mines about 60cm away) A projector doesn't have this problem.
3x 3D 40" screens would be close to perfect 'cept for bloomin' bezels, gah!

Good luck BBT with the new projector, even with only one you should be able to get some serious FOV and a large enough screen to feel motion sick.

Quote from zapz :

So Jason, does your 40" monitor work in 3D with LFS? I read somewhere that the 120hz HD TV's didn't work with PC's in 3D. Hope I'm wrong about that, I'd love to have a 32-40" 3D screen on the PC. Nah, just anaglyph 3D, my screen is only series 5. It outputs PC (DVI>HDMI) to 60Hz, I was just using it as an example of 3D at 40".

I'll concede your point that you need a bigger screen for full immersion. But to do something like that, in 3D, correctly is a huge expense, even without the motion simulator, and I'd say you'd get 90% of that with a single screen with smaller FOV and one of those IR head tracking devices. We're talking about < $1K USD for something like that and less than $600 if you're willing to use a smaller screen (24"). Ok, maybe you missed my point, not just a bigger screen, but something like multi-screen or a single PJ to make it 2m+ wide is really best IMO. I have tried (psuedo) TrackIR to compensate for only one screen. It's great for flight sims etc, but when racing, you really need side views in your peripheral, because it's mega weird/hard to look sideways to check opponents and keep the perfect line while on the ragged edge. You glance a little bit with your head, you think your going one way, but then straighten your head and the car is going somewhere else! Now I see even 52 inch 3D screen wouldn't be good enough, for me . Just don't want to see ppl spend money and be disappointed, so I am offering my perspective on it.

As for the wheel getting in the way... well you just put the screen in front of the wheel and turn of the virtual wheel & driver animations. Of course you'd need a really hi-res screen (which does not exist) to pull off sitting so close. Yeah, I've done that, check my sig. It's quite close as possible and the 1080p is quite good enough resolution at that distance (can't see gaps between pixels) and I'm usually pretty picky when looking at my screen.
or.... I think now I re-read this, you actually mean put the screen between my head and the wheel? Ah yes, but i have these things connecting me to the wheel - arms. Sometimes they reach to the top of the wheel, the screen would have to be too high. I have tried that high FOV and squashed my face against the screen hehe, but so close to the screen gives a headache fast. And yes the pixels are too blocky that close.

Anyway this was about a single PJ vs a single monitor and I still don't see any advantage for the PJ (when using 3D) at current HD resolutions.

When I get the new home theater up and running, I'll try it out with LFS. Should be something to experience even in 2d. Just don't sit at the back of the room like I see so many do. They may as well use a 19" when sitting that far back. Try and make it match the size of a small car, because the gaming wheels are slightly smaller than normal, then it will match up well. Some people you see try on 4m screen and sit 3 meters away at 90 degrees FOV an their windscreen is the size of a small bus and they look like a mouse in a car so i dunoo how they think that is real.. I've only been able to try with a 1024x768 projector so not enough resolution to get to a higher FOV sitting close, but man it was intense being surrounded 180 degrees, even at such crappy resolution.
Please me know how it goes, I assume you have a 1080 beamer guys?

I think with my experiences, if I was trying to get the best experience for my money, I wouldn't buy a single 3D TV just for car sims. Either I would get myself two more extra large 2D screens or just a single 3D Projector and make a slightly curved screen because you need that screen width to wrap around your view. Please don't anyone take any offence, this is just my point of view, not saying anyone has made the wrong choice getting a 3D monitor, of course it would look great, maybe you play other games to - FPS's etc.

BTW thanks for the red bull link, that was cool to watch

Really surprised Red Bull or others won't make a 3D version of that. It's not like they can't afford it. The company owner has his own Cobra FFS. Think about that next time your sipping on your next can of that poison!


Anyway going back to your original point, a perfect 3D screen at 40" at 4-16 times the currect resolution at 1.5 ft from the head, well I dunno. I think that will never come soon at that resolution, would have to be so close to get a good FOV to try and focus properly without a headache would be difficult, and would be so costly, that 2x 1080p 3D beamers would be sufficiently awsome and about the same price?

Would really like to know how BBT goes eventually with the single beamer solution in 3D, is it good enough resolution to get a proper real life sized large FOV. I've considered renting one for testing it, but even for one day it's the same cost as a large full HD TV.

Of interest..

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

..
When I first got them I ran for a lot more than 2 hours at a time some nights, no problem. I actually posted a thread wondering why I found my eyes LESS tired than after sessions of non-stereo gaming, I can still only assume it's because my eyes are at least adjusting "one parameter more" constantly so the muscles don't stay locked quite the same way as with 2D.
.
.

Had the same effect myself. I felt that my eyes were focused 4 feet or so behind the screen. Much more relaxing than focusing at my normal 2 feet away. I can cetainly feel it when I've done a heavy session at close focus for many hours, yet no harsh feeling when focusing further away even for hours. It was like I wasn't even gaming at all!

Quote from JasonJ :

Of interest..
Had the same effect myself. I felt that my eyes were focused 4 feet or so behind the screen. Much more relaxing than focusing at my normal 2 feet away. I can cetainly feel it when I've done a heavy session at close focus for many hours, yet no harsh feeling when focusing further away even for hours. It was like I wasn't even gaming at all!

I do agree, but it's not focus - it's just eyeball convergence. I made that mistake too, that's why it does take "some" getting used to when you first begin to use it. The focal depth is not changing since your monitor is still 2 feet away, but your eye muscles are not locked at basically the same convergence point in space any more because of the two separate views they are being presented. This can confuse the brain a little at first since it's probably used to coupling focal depth and convergence of the eye somewhat. I couldn't use full depth for a few days, but after that, I play everything cranked to max.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

I do agree, but it's not focus - it's just eyeball convergence. I made that mistake too, that's why it does take "some" getting used to when you first begin to use it. The focal depth is not changing since your monitor is still 2 feet away, but your eye muscles are not locked at basically the same convergence point in space any more because of the two separate views they are being presented. This can confuse the brain a little at first since it's probably used to coupling focal depth and convergence of the eye somewhat. I couldn't use full depth for a few days, but after that, I play everything cranked to max.

I'm guessing when our brain will feel weird when looking at real objects, not into a screen

Well you have to play hell of a lot a lot to make this happen. I played a heli sim DCS:BS (big screen+TrackIR) for about 3 days straight (yeah 16-20 hour sessions) and felt a little bit of occasional vertigo for about a day afterwards. No worse then spending 1 night on a cruise ship in rough seas. so GAME ON!

I'd think track IR is probably more to get used to since you're adding another variable to the situation.

True dat. Like a motion sickness after too much of it. But my point was would be hard to mess up your normal perception from too much gaming. That's engrained at a very young age.

Yeh, and +1 on the convergence info. Thanks for sharing.

TrackIR (6 D.O.F) with no deadzone + nVidia 3D Vision =

Look at the LX6 bonnet.

LOOK at the LX6 bonnet.

Look AT the LX6 bonnet.

Look at THE LX6 BONNE- oh god I've crashed.





....look at that barrier, just LOOK AT THAT barrier, I can see OVER that barrier

That can perfectly describe any man in the world. With some name changes.

Women too.

Quote from TehPaws3D :

That can perfectly describe any man in the world. With some name changes.

Yeah, replace "LX-6 bonnet" with 'boobies'