Jump to content


Photo

Stereoscopic 3D

3D

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 Mythril

Mythril

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 28 March 2015 - 00:53

Finally got around to start on Book 2, it looks beautiful in 3D Vision. :)


  • Edreamer Jamil and khh like this

#42 te36

te36

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area

Posted 24 June 2015 - 22:40

+1.

 

Running DFC on win 7 with Nvidia 3DTV onto Sony projector 120" and 3D with the patch. Very cool: immersive experience.

 

http://helixmod.blog...l-chapters.html

 

A bit worried now about the upcoming books and 3D updates (Jun 25th...).

 

Would really be great if RTG would incorporate patch and continue adopt it for the upcoming books. But i guess not too many folks expressed wish to play in 3D. Gotta persuade more folks the earth does not have to be flat  ;) 

 

Gotta get back to mercuria. Just strolling the streets is cool.



#43 Pirateguybrush

Pirateguybrush

    Rubber Ducky

  • Shifter
  • Pip
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 June 2015 - 02:22

DarkStarSword will continue to update the patch for new books.  It might take a little while for each one to get done though, so just be patient and keep an eye on that blog you linked to.


  • Mythril likes this

#44 DarkStarSword

DarkStarSword

    Rubber Ducky

  • Istrum
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 December 2015 - 04:48

I've updated the fix for the Unity 5 and Book 4 updates. Not only that, but the fix now automatically adjusts the UI depth to line up with whatever the cursor is hovering over, and includes a brand new technique to drastically improve the appearance of all reflective / shiny surfaces - leather has never looked so good in 3D ;-)

 

Unfortunately, the Purple Mountains in Book 4 have some depth inversion issues caused by two separate scenes being drawn in the same space (it looks like a skybox issue, but it's not). This is one of those cases where the devs have cheated to create an effect that is convincing enough in 2D, but falls down immediately in 3D. @Ragnar would you mind changing that to just use a skybox, or at least push the background mountains further away than the foreground mountains?


  • khh and te36 like this

#45 Philip

Philip

    Rubber Ducky

  • Shifter
  • Pip
  • 46 posts
  • LocationKarlsruhe, Germany

Posted 26 January 2016 - 01:11

I'm not really up to date here, but I just remembered that Ragnar mentioned the possibility of adding Rift support. As the two "big" VR headsets (HTC VIve and Oculus Rift) will be released "soon" (a.k.a. starting in April), I got curious if DF:C might be playable in VR. If playing a not-made-for-VR game in VR is a sensible thing to do remains another question, of course.

 

From what I read in this thread, the DarkStarSword-patches seem to work nicely for stereoscopic 3D. Does that also apply to VR? Or have there been any bits information by RTG themselves that I missed?

 

I guess that they are way to busy with finishing the game as to work on any additional fancy stuff, but in case they mentioned something, I'd be interested in knowing :-)



#46 Pirateguybrush

Pirateguybrush

    Rubber Ducky

  • Shifter
  • Pip
  • 36 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 05:59

3d Vision fixes do not currently apply to VR at all, sorry.



#47 khh

khh

    Harbinger of the Balance

  • Moderator
  • 7061 posts
  • LocationNorway

Posted 26 January 2016 - 08:33

I'm not really up to date here, but I just remembered that Ragnar mentioned the possibility of adding Rift support. As the two "big" VR headsets (HTC VIve and Oculus Rift) will be released "soon" (a.k.a. starting in April), I got curious if DF:C might be playable in VR. If playing a not-made-for-VR game in VR is a sensible thing to do remains another question, of course.

 

From what I read in this thread, the DarkStarSword-patches seem to work nicely for stereoscopic 3D. Does that also apply to VR? Or have there been any bits information by RTG themselves that I missed?

 

I guess that they are way to busy with finishing the game as to work on any additional fancy stuff, but in case they mentioned something, I'd be interested in knowing :-)

I don't have any particular information about this, but I would be surprised if VR support was added at this stage. It seems that Unity doesn't really support it out of the box by default, and reworking the game to add in the support would probably cost quite a bit without really expanding the market for the game. 

 

But as I said that's only my own guesses, not any kind of official information. 


April Ryan is my friend,
Every sorrow she can mend.
When I visit her dark realm,
Does it simply overwhelm.


#48 Mythril

Mythril

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 09:27

Well assuming the team consists of game nerds like us, if they do buy a Rift for the office I can't see why they wouldn't at least try to make it work with the game, if nothing else just to play around with it for themselves. :P

 

Though it'd obviously depend on how busy they are with other projects, and like khh said if Unity doesn't support it in the engine, it might be a lot of work just to get it working.

 

I'm glad 3D Vision works at least, although the subtitles makes my eyes hurt (I need subtitles because I have bad hearing so I can't always hear the dialogue properly...)



#49 te36

te36

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area

Posted 26 January 2016 - 21:20

I've updated the fix for the Unity 5 and Book 4 updates. Not only that, but the fix now automatically adjusts the UI depth to line up with whatever the cursor is hovering over, and includes a brand new technique to drastically improve the appearance of all reflective / shiny surfaces - leather has never looked so good in 3D ;-)

 

Unfortunately, the Purple Mountains in Book 4 have some depth inversion issues caused by two separate scenes being drawn in the same space (it looks like a skybox issue, but it's not). This is one of those cases where the devs have cheated to create an effect that is convincing enough in 2D, but falls down immediately in 3D. @Ragnar would you mind changing that to just use a skybox, or at least push the background mountains further away than the foreground mountains?

 

Thank you so much for your work. Its sad that this work (AFAIK) has not yet been acknowledged by redthreadgames. At least i would like to see your 3D fixes to become pat of the final post-book 5 game package.



#50 Philip

Philip

    Rubber Ducky

  • Shifter
  • Pip
  • 46 posts
  • LocationKarlsruhe, Germany

Posted 01 February 2016 - 16:22

It seems that Unity doesn't really support it out of the box by default, and reworking the game to add in the support would probably cost quite a bit without really expanding the market for the game.

That would actually surprise me - I guess that all major engines support VR by now. For Unity, see http://docs.unity3d....VROverview.html and https://unity3d.com/unity/multiplatform/vr-ar

Of course there probably is some difference between "Our engine supports XYZ!" and actually getting XYZ to work reliably in a game. As I fear RTG have experienced more than once...

 

However, even if the technical side would be just switching some lines of code for achieving a perfect rendering on VR headsets, the game would probably need some reworking to make it actually enjoyable in VR. Consensus seems to be that VR breaks most of the traditionally proven wisdom of game design

 

But as Mythril said, if there are some nerds on the team that have/will experiment with Rift etc, I think many fans would love to give DF:C a try even in not-at-all-optimized VR!



#51 Burns Flipper

Burns Flipper

    Fringe Café Regular

  • Istrum
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 11 March 2016 - 07:52

Given that you can get DFC for $8 on Humblebundle together with a series of other games (Magicka 2 and Shadowrun) I doubt DFC would make much money from putting in the effort to do anything but finish book five and move on.


  • khh likes this

I put the FUN in funeral!


#52 te36

te36

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area

Posted 14 March 2016 - 10:00

Given that you can get DFC for $8 on Humblebundle together with a series of other games (Magicka 2 and Shadowrun) I doubt DFC would make much money from putting in the effort to do anything but finish book five and move on.

 

I didn't have any hope that anyone from RTG would even read this thread :D At best i was hoping that enough folks would chime in so that maybe they consider to do better on 3D fro Draugen :rolleyes:

 

Do you know how game pricing and revenue correlate ? I certainly don't. I can surely see how making it cheaper expands the set of people buying it.



#53 Mythril

Mythril

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 March 2016 - 11:35

I didn't have any hope that anyone from RTG would even read this thread :D At best i was hoping that enough folks would chime in so that maybe they consider to do better on 3D fro Draugen :rolleyes:

Well honestly I don't really think the "effort to profit" ratio is that good for improving 3D support currently. There just are too few people who are interested in it, and even though Rift and Vive are coming out this year, there might not be enough early adopters for game publishers to actually make even on the extra development cost needed to support VR, so I can understand not being able to prioritize it.

 

Do you know how game pricing and revenue correlate ? I certainly don't. I can surely see how making it cheaper expands the set of people buying it.

Once a product has been finished and finalized, assuming that no more improvements and bug fixes are needed, then any sales will increase profits, even if the sale price is much lower than the price initially was. If you factor in user support then there might be some extra costs involved, but it *should* already be covered by whatever they already budget for support for their other current/future games.



#54 te36

te36

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco Bay Area

Posted 14 March 2016 - 12:54

Well honestly I don't really think the "effort to profit" ratio is that good for improving 3D support currently. There just are too few people who are interested in it, and even though Rift and Vive are coming out this year, there might not be enough early adopters for game publishers to actually make even on the extra development cost needed to support VR, so I can understand not being able to prioritize it.

 

Once a product has been finished and finalized, assuming that no more improvements and bug fixes are needed, then any sales will increase profits, even if the sale price is much lower than the price initially was. If you factor in user support then there might be some extra costs involved, but it *should* already be covered by whatever they already budget for support for their other current/future games.

 

On the 3D front, i would have hoped that newer engines like Unity 5 would make it easier to only build correct 3D models instead of doing tricks/hacks that would not work when actually displaying in 3D. But i really have no idea how these hacks and shaders etc. work. I just think of the 3D engine as a programming language and by that standard, if you can hack around it and create non-3D displayable content, its a bad hackers language ;-)

 

Wrt. revenue: It doesn't look as simple to me as you make it sound.  If you reduce sales price, you will get less revenue from folks who would be willing to pay more.



#55 Mythril

Mythril

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 March 2016 - 13:12

On the 3D front, i would have hoped that newer engines like Unity 5 would make it easier to only build correct 3D models instead of doing tricks/hacks that would not work when actually displaying in 3D. But i really have no idea how these hacks and shaders etc. work. I just think of the 3D engine as a programming language and by that standard, if you can hack around it and create non-3D displayable content, its a bad hackers language ;-)

Yeah this is true! The more builtin support there is for (real) 3D and VR in the game engine itself, the less work it should be to make games work for it. :) Not sure if it's true for the current generation, but with Rift coming out and Steam itself backing Vive, I'd not be surprised if better builtin support will at least come in the next generation of game engines.

 

 

Wrt. revenue: It doesn't look as simple to me as you make it sound.  If you reduce sales price, you will get less revenue from folks who would be willing to pay more.

The problem is that after a certain period of time, most of the people who were already interested in the game would already have bought the game. So when they lower the prices, they are trying to grab the attention of buyers who are "less interested", and might not have bought the game if it wasn't for the sale.

 

Additionally the sale period would most likely be for a limited time, so those who do buy the games at the reduced price might like it so much that they recommend it to other people who haven't played it, and hopefully those other people might actually buy the game at full price. So it could be a somewhat cheaper way to advertise the game than to actually buy advertising spots.

 

Anyways you are definitely right that it's not as simple as I'm trying to make it sound. After all, marketing is it's own field of study, and I can't possibly know everything they learn to take into consideration when making decisions about sales and stuff, hehe.



#56 DarkStarSword

DarkStarSword

    Rubber Ducky

  • Istrum
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 14 March 2016 - 13:41

Well honestly I don't really think the "effort to profit" ratio is that good for improving 3D support currently. There just are too few people who are interested in it, and even though Rift and Vive are coming out this year, there might not be enough early adopters for game publishers to actually make even on the extra development cost needed to support VR, so I can understand not being able to prioritize it.

I'm not entirely sure I agree, at least not for stereo 3D (VR is a totally different matter) - modding 3D support into a game takes me anywhere between a couple of hours to a couple of weeks (usually a couple of days + time to play the game looking for more shaders, longer if our tools lack a feature we need for the game in question), and I can do that without access to the source code. It would not take the devs much of their budget to do the same, and it has the *potential* to be a lot easier for them to do it (they have the source code with a high level view of what the shader is doing, I have GPU assembly and have to figure that part out for myself), and the *potential* for them to do a much better job (if an enemy health bar shader lacks the depth information of the enemy, I can't move it to the correct depth and will have to compromise. They could just add the missing information and do it right).

 

I say potentially there because as we saw in the recent patch to add official 3D Vision support to Rise of the Tomb Raider - the community (Helifax, Mike_ar69 and myself) did a better job in the mod we released the same day than the seasoned AAA developers managed (which was released with blatantly broken tile lighting, decals, etc). This proves something I had suspected for a while - that a lot of development studios just lack the expertise that we have in the community to get it right. I've been contemplating setting up a contracting business to fill this void, but it's not clear to me that there are enough devs who see the advantage of stereo 3D to make that worthwhile (and advertising 3D to devs is just as hard as advertising it to the public - it can only be done in person, which just doesn't scale).

 

VR is a totally different matter however - if the game hasn't been designed from the ground up with VR in mind it would take a lot of compromises to add it later and the result would be poor. Unless the Rift + Vive become absolute must have accessories it doesn't seem worth it to me. And I hate to say it and it's too early to call, but I really have my doubts that VR will achieve mass adoption once everyone realises that what they imagine VR to be is far from what VR actually delivers, which is the complete opposite problem that stereo 3D has, where everyone imagines it will be a gimmick (for some reason...?), but when they finally put on the glasses and try it with one of our modded games they are always blown away with just how much it really does add.

 

Still, it wouldn't be the first time an inferior technology won out over a superior technology and leave supporters of the superior technology to talk about just how 'ahead of the game the Amiga chip / Nokia Internet Tablets / 3D Vision / insert your favorite yet inexplicably failed technology here' was for decades to come.



#57 Mythril

Mythril

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 14 March 2016 - 14:40

Yeah you are right, I have to admit I'm often quite impressed with the work you and the Helix mod/3D Vision community does! Thanks for all the work you guys are doing. :)

 

I guess I've just played such a big variety of games, and encountered some games where 3D Vision support is glitchy at best and unplayable at its worst, that I don't really know how much work it really would involve to fix "every" problem. Like you said, it could very well be that those teams just do not have the expertise needed, and that it is actually not that hard to fix (regular) 3D support. But honestly, with larger AAA games coming out with major bugs and glitches on PC (AC Unity, Arkham Knight), sometimes one can't help but wonder where all the development focus actually goes.

 

Your prediction for VR is quite a valid concern, honestly I know that it's probably a bad idea to be an early adopter. That didn't stop me from preordering the Rift though. I've been waiting to order one since DK1 though, so it was hard to convince myself not to preorder one, even after seeing the final price. I just told myself I'd have to wait a little bit longer to switch out my HDTV with a 4K one. :P



#58 DarkStarSword

DarkStarSword

    Rubber Ducky

  • Istrum
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 14 March 2016 - 17:36

Don't feel too bad about being an early adopter of VR - if too many people hesitate the technology will flop for sure. This is an important time for VR - it needs enough people to adopt it to reach a critical mass if it has any hope of becoming mainstream. And there are some experiences which will go hands down to VR - cockpit games in particular, and I'm sure there will be some other unique experiences as well.



#59 Mythril

Mythril

    Rubber Ducky

  • Vestrum
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 15 March 2016 - 18:27

Yup indeed! I don't feel *that* bad about pre-ordering it, hehe. In any case, it'll be interesting to see how things works out for VR in the near future!

 

I've been testing out Riftcat the last few days (it's a program/driver that lets you run Oculus demos/games using Google Cardboard), it worked surprisingly well on the first tech demo I tried, but then I had lots of trouble getting it to run properly after that. Might give it a few more tries while waiting for the Rift's release.



#60 Burns Flipper

Burns Flipper

    Fringe Café Regular

  • Istrum
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 16 March 2016 - 00:01

 

Do you know how game pricing and revenue correlate ? I certainly don't. I can surely see how making it cheaper expands the set of people buying it.

You are lucky, I actually do. I do pricing simulations and transfer pricing as part of my daily work and I have a big Brisbane games design firm among my clients ;)

 

Having said that even if you oversimplify a normal supply curve and make it linear, it is obvious that if a game was priced at $50 and is now discounted to say $4 (keep in mind the $8 I mentioned is for a bundle of games but let's be generous and say 50% of that would go to RTG which is highly doubtful though and doesn't even consider comms) you'd need to sell 12.5 times as many copies to achieve the same revenue.

 

Now here is the thing, the games industry makes 80% of their money within the first 24 hours following release usually and revenues peter out in a log log thereafter (pretty damn fast). Granted DFC is episodic and so to a small degree you'd expect to see this repeated albeit on a very small scale for each new chapter. However reality is that at this late stage a 12.5 x increase in copies sold following a deep discount is extremely unlikely (read impossible).

 

Instead what RTG is doing is price skimming (which is a logical step), hoovering up the last pennies. Not much but why leave them lying on the ground if sales are flat otherwise at this stage anyhow.

 

Bottom line, the revenue for DFC has been earned. There is no point spending any more $ on DFC other than artistic reasons and reputation (read the game needs to be finished to avoid uproar).


I put the FUN in funeral!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users