A 3D version already exists - it’s called VR.
I find VR to be a hopeless technology. Overpriced and under performing.
It may eventually get somewhere but at the moment it just isnt right.
It just isnt worth getting sick for which is what would happen to me and many others on a long flight.
I guess I will have to wait for the hollographic solution to hit the market.
As far as MS and Asobo are concerned they have had to introduce a VR mode to
make that possible so I am asking for a 3D mode which can be extremely effective and more importantly, cheap.
As to what I should remember or forget this I will decide myself.
I was asking for a 3D version not a VR head set. I am very fully aware of VR and its short comings.
One doesnt compare with the other. VR isnt an alternative to 3D.
3D is cheap and easy and works. I think it would be interesting to have but it is interesting
that it seems I am not allowed to ask for it.
well thank you for your input but I dont recall asking for Nvidia 3D who will probably also say that soon there 3000 graphics cards are toast.
I would not expect anything else. That is a commercial decision.
All I ask for was could we have a 3D version in MSFS.
I think it would be cool.
I do hope you will vote for it.
I think you make a lot of sense. No doubt that VR is much better than 3D.
But also far more expensive and requires a lot more than just the headset.
offering one as a replacement for the other doesnt make sense.
There is a middle ground I think which could still give a more immersive experience 3D.
Now obviously the points you make are well taken but on the other hand think about what we are doing:
we are sitting in a plane with a cockpit and instruments close by while out there is the outside world.
So as far as applying the visions phasing is concerned, if the cockpit would seem close with some depth and the outside world would be ‘well outside depthwise’ that could be done without too much tecnical hassle but give an extra dimension which would work on all.
that was my thinking.
VR is quite different and doesnt compare with 3D. One places you, or tries to, in a virtual environment.
the other gives you the feeling of depth and 3D.
The victorians discovered the simplicity of this with their Stereo Scope things which simply used a photo with two images. Your brain does the rest. Show that to someone now and they are still surprised by the effect.
VR is NOT 3D. I know that. I am specifically talking about a 3D version which would create depth
as described.
So if you wanted VR without VR goggles, this is what you’d end up with:
When you slap on the VR headset, your brain is able to make out a single image. You’d need a way to produce the above image without having to sit half an inch from the screen or buy a $7,000 laptop that has glasses-less 3D screen
Understanding how depth perception works will help explain why everyone in this thread is telling you that what you want isn’t currently feasible. Depth perception - Wikipedia
1 Like
This is clearly written by someone who’s never played with a VR headset before. Any VR player will tell you that being immersed in a virtual environment they can physically move around in is 10000x better than having to sit in a sweet spot so you can have that 3D feeling.
What you’re actually asking for is Augmented Reality: The ability for the game to project a 3D representation in real space. Is that accurate?
1 Like
Thank you for explaining VR to me which was not what I was talking about.
Always good, having dealt with this technology all my life to hear from someone else. However I much fear that you are wrong. Specially your concluding phrase:
“Understanding how depth perception works will help explain why everyone in this thread is telling you that what you want isn’t currently feasible.”
You see, this is so wrong. Let me explain: (by the way this is about 3D NOT VR)
You see it is possible. Infact right now there are at least three types of monitors on the market specifically for the purpose.
Obviously as no doubt you have worked out, I am referring to passive 3D.
Well at least if I was buying a separate monitor but we dont want that do we.
But one could, we dont, buy a passive 3D monitor.
Passive 3D monitors work pretty much like you would expect 3D technology to behave. When you wear a pair of specialized glasses and view content on the screen, you’ll see in-depth. Typically, 3D monitors come with at least one or two pairs of these glasses.
In terms of affordability, passive 3D monitors are the least expensive option if you want a 3D monitor but don’t want to pay high prices. More importantly, if you’re thinking about this upgrade, they don’t require a specialized graphics card to work properly since the monitor is engineered to do that heavy lifting.
But That can also be done with SW. That is what I am talking about. Yes, I could go and buy a 3D monitor but I am asking for a 3D mode in MSFS so I can continue my curved current monitor.
You see, all feasible.
(By the way for completeness as you obviously think this isn’t all possible the other two type monitors are Active, and glasses less. The last one however isn’t really for private use but heavily used in industry and medical modelling and even the Active Monitor also costs).
So simple passive SW engineered 3D.
very feasible.
I’ve got an old pair of those Nvidia 3D glasses that uses LCD shutters.
With a compatible monitor, which I have, it generates slightly different offsite images in alternate frames.
The glasses then rapidly flash each eye on, and off very rapidly, so that only one image is shown to one eye at a time.
The illusion of 3D is really well done. It make it look like characters on the screen are flowing in front of the monitor.
The benefit of this method is that it doesn’t need to generate additional frames so no extra load on the system. The bad side is its more suited to third person games, and I’m not sure how it would work inside the cockpit.
It would look really cool when in one of the external views, as it would look like the plane if hovering in front of your monitor.
Äh .. what? Sorry but I think you mean something completly different with “3D” then most of us do 
…
If you mean with 3D in a way that you will have a perception of depth, than VR is EXACTLY the same. In both cases you need to render 2 images with slightly different view points (one for the left and one for the right eye). There is no way around that.
1 Like
Personally, I don’t care for the “scuba diver” view in VR.
A “wrap around” 3D multi-monitor system would add the 3d depth of VR and still allow you to see your controls and other interfaces. It wouldn’t be in a “virtual world” but with the 3d depth and a FOV VR can’t match…might be interesting.
There are some huge misunderstandings here.
Passive 3D uses polarising lens in each eye instead of shutter glasses.
Passive 3D absolutely does not work with standard non-3D monitors and TVs. You still need a specially designed 3D TV / Monitor or movie projector to work with passive 3D glasses.
You cannot just put on passive glasses and watch in 3D on a non-3D device no matter what signal you send it.
1 Like
this is called Augmented Reality. You’d still need a piece of hardware to project that into real space.
1 Like
That’s not the 3D I am referring to. The shutter glasses require a special monitor to work. Without the glasses the image looks pretty much the same. Put them on, and it’s more like augmented reality. Object pop out of the screen, as if they are between you, and the monitor.
It’s not generating two images like in the image above. It’s a single image rendered from slightly different horizontal positions every alternate frame.
It’s a cool effect, totally convincing, and works extremely well in third person games. I played one of the Assassins Creed games with it, and it’s like the characters could be plucked out of the air with your hands.
I wish I would have had a bag of popcorn for this.
OP needs to just try a VR headset. From what he says, I’m gonna discount any claims he’s ever looked through one. VR works fantastically with this title.
4 Likes
Please refrain from personal remarks.
And again I need to point out that there is a difference between VR and 3D.
But it seems that most reacting on this thread do not know the difference.
So it is pointless continuing this.
I rather think most here do. Both technologies been around for years - long enough for anyone with any interest to become informed. You don’t like personal remarks, but you feel it’s ok to throw a blanket comment on everyone else here? “…it seems that most reacting on this thread do not know the difference.”
3D TV’s are dead. Gone. Almost buried. They were a neat gimmick for a while just like laser discs and HD-DVD’s. The reasons they failed don’t matter, only that they did. No matter who knows what about 3D and VR, it’s pretty obvious to even the laymen that the 3D TV is gone and VR is in. VR is relatively new but is no longer in its infancy. It will get better. Few would blame you if you don’t want to jump on board now, but it IS the future.
1 Like
You don’t need a special monitor for shutter glasses (only for polarization glasses, but again, the principle is the same as for shutter glasses - see below) - and it is exactly the same from a computing standpoint as VR.
The only difference is, that in a VR headset you have two displays - one for each eye. With a monitor you have only one display, but you still need independet images for each eye - and this is done with the shutter glasses.
In a VR headset, due to the independet two displays, the two images for the left and respectively right eye, are shown simultaniously through the independent displays per eye.
On a monitor on the otherhand, the two images for left and right eye are displayed one after the other. If the monitor shows the picture for the left eye, the shutter glass darkens your right eye, when the monitor shows you the picture for the right eye, the glasses are darkening your left eye. And if that is done in quick succession you get a flicker free 3D image popping out of the monitor.
But you see, the principle is exactly the same, the workload for the PC is (if the resolutions are the same of course) the same.
And yes VR is THE definition of 3D - it doesnt get mor 3D than that.
1 Like
"You don’t like personal remarks, but you feel it’s ok to throw a blanket comment on everyone else here? “…it seems that most reacting on this thread do not know the difference.”
OK fair point. Maybe I should wonder why folks don’t stick to the subject of the thread.
I have repeatedly stated that I know very well what VR is.
Many reactions almost seem to suggest that I don’t and wish to replace VR with 3D.
I don’t of course.
I asked specifically why they don’t include a software generated 3D version.
This is not a replacement of VR something most likely a minority of users would or could invest in but additional. 3D may be old hat compared with VR which itself is rather old hat compared with holographic projection.
But for thousands it , if done right, would be a reasonable proximity of the 3D perspective cockpit view. For many it may lead to the purchase of a VR headset once that technology grows up, but for thousands it would give a reasonable and extremely cheap 3D experience.
But people keep talking about VR which leads me to think they simply don’t know the difference or haven’t bothered to understand my point.
I am aware of VR. I know VR I know how it works.
I am not talking about VR that is in reach of a minority of users.
I am talking about 3D that could add a reasonable approach to a simulation of a 3D perspective at the cost of a few bucks.
1 Like