Spring RTS Engine

Has anyone ever tried any stereoscopic 3D displays? Such as:

Shutterglasses, head mounted displays (HMD), 3D monitors (with glasses), autostereoscopic 3D monitors (no glasses needed) or the big guns - dual projector setup.

I've tried shutterglasses, very unimpressive. But I love 3D IMAX type movies.

Imagine the possibilities with Spring...

A game that came with my father's G5 iMac (Nanosaur 2 ^_^) has an anaglyphic stereo3d option. It made me really nauseous

Peet wrote:A game that came with my father's G5 iMac (Nanosaur 2 ^_^) has an anaglyphic stereo3d option. It made me really nauseous

anaglyphic.. you mean like, random dot pattern "cross your eyes to see the sailboat"... that's pretty awesome but I imagine it would be nauseating after a while.

No, anaglyphic 3d view is with colour tinting, and you wear red/blue or red/green glasses.

CarRepairer wrote:Has anyone ever tried any stereoscopic 3D displays? Such as:

Shutterglasses, head mounted displays (HMD), 3D monitors (with glasses), autostereoscopic 3D monitors (no glasses needed) or the big guns - dual projector setup.

I've tried shutterglasses, very unimpressive. But I love 3D IMAX type movies.

Imagine the possibilities with Spring...

Pretty much all of the above whilst having a tour of my University's 'Visualisation & Virtual Reality' department of the School of Computing

Peet wrote:It made me really nauseous

wrong word
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Anauseous

I know what it means, and I meant it...

the form of the word you used means "causing or able to cause nausea"
but whatever.. -_-

In other words Peet is disgusting!

rattle wrote:In other words Peet is disgusting!

+1

Aegis, when a word in the dictionary has 2 definitions BOTH are valid, not just the first one.

the correct word would have been 'nauseated' for those who had trouble comprehending a 2 line dictionary entry

There is some quite realistic 3D display technology thats existed in the last decade in the form of stereoscopic television that doesnt require glasses or headsets, however the technology causes extreme motion sickness and as a result remained a niche product in laboratories and was never mass produced, pushing costs further up. You tend to find them in private shows where people are showing off their companies wares.

i have 3D glasses and (when it works) it's really impressive but makes headache if you use them too long in a row

the problem is that it needs special graphical drivers and nvidia don't often refresh them so i can't use them with my 8800 and it doesn't work with LCD screen because of the slow refresh rate

Peet wrote:No, anaglyphic 3d view is with colour tinting, and you wear red/blue or red/green glasses.

You'll notice I didn't include anaglyph in my original list because it is fail.

Satirik wrote:i have 3D glasses and (when it works) it's really impressive but makes headache if you use them too long in a row

the problem is that it needs special graphical drivers and nvidia don't often refresh them so i can't use them with my 8800 and it doesn't work with LCD screen because of the slow refresh rate

Yeah those shutterglasses are also borderline fail. Polarized lenses alone are tinted, then when they shutter 50% of the time that makes them further 50% darker. Then there's the flickering.

I would love to play spring and other games with some of the other types of displays. We're getting there, slowly.

I have run a polarized 3d projection setup that was displaying 3d LIDAR maps for a dance piece. It was neat and looked good but had the problem of being alpha software in a theater show which meant that Murphy struck and was causing things to fail left and right. Of course some of that might have been caused by whoever decided to name the show "Collapse." Of course the other big problem with the setup is that it cost somewhere on the order of 70,000 dollars.