With all the technology we have to day, and the graphics capabilities and processing power of modern computers and gaming consoles - WHY IS THERE STILL NO TRUE 3D GAMING SYSTEMS?!

In regards to PC gaming, I did see a device on TV a year or two ago that was supposed to turn any (modern) game in to a 3D experience utilizing 3D goggles (which masked the left eye for the right-eye perspective, and vice-versa). I never looked it up on the internet and I imagine it did not take off.

In terms of console gaming, I actually expected the next generation (the current generation now) to feature 3D gaming technology. The technology exists today and can be affordable when mass-produced. It also works. We've all seen weak versions of this technology, but that is not what I'm talking about.

Because I'm short on time, I'll say this. I don't think the next generation of gaming consoles (the consoles that will be ready for prime time within the next year or two) will feature 3D technology... still (I hope on wrong on this). Why are we still playing games on FLAT screen displays... that are... well, flat. I want to be IN THE GAME, or as close as I can be to that. Doesn't every gamer? So why has this technology failed to go anywhere? Do gamers (the masses) just not care about this level of gaming? I've been waiting for it for sooooooooooo frikin' long, and still nothing! BLAH!

So, DaveTRON, with your background in the gaming industry, please fill me in on what ever you can on this one. I can't believe that gamers in general don't care about this technology - how can they not? I'm guessing that I'm either way off in terms of making this affordable AND work well, OR perhaps the gaming industry is not willing to take such a step when they can still squeeze several more very profitable years out of current FLAT gaming before going further with true 3D technology.

To me though, it seems like such a waste. Who cares how photo-realistic gaming experiences can get... when it's all so FLAT! I'm really getting bored with flat gaming - seriously! I need more than just looking at a flat, depthless screen.

And those of you who share in my desire for 3D (true 3D) gaming experiences, please chime in with your thoughts. I really thought this would exist (and in a really cool way) years ago.

Todd I know your feeling about this. But there is something to be said about true real 3d gaming as such that you adore so much there. If you had several thousands tp several million dollars for something like what the cray computers are capable of doing for that type of animation. Or really high en SGI machins or th orion computers that have multiple cpus in them. Trust me you would probably bye one on the spot. But the problem with those are Supercomputers that goes with a heay price tag in rendering that kind of true real animation of what you want th typcial pc to do. And I don't want to sound lik I'm putting anyon down her at al.

kmon Wrote:Mainstream computers arent even close to be being powerful enough to handle photo real 3d apps. Give it 15+ years...

I'm not sure it will take 15 or more years to get photo realistic 3D graphics. Just my opinion. Looking at the graphics of 15 years ago compared to today - they've come a long way. I'm guessing less than a decade for photo realistic 3D graphics to become affordable to general consumers... the question is WILL they actually develop it for home gaming? Who knows?

But, I'm not saying that 3D graphics have to be photo realistic today. Heck - the flat graphics of today's games are not yet photo realistic. They're very nice, and getting better each year, but not even close to true photo realism. But I bet that's not far off (for flat displays) - at least not in terms of non-human renderings such as vehicles, backgrounds, and mechanical objects.

In my haste to post my original rant, I forgot to explain the kind of 3D implementation I was talking about. Now comfortable 3D virtual reality goggles would be cool, but probably very price to produce... and probably not very comfortable (for many more years anyway).

I was talking about goggles that made the TV or computer screen appear to be 3D. I've taken this snippet from a website that sells 3D goggles, but I'm not going to link to them because their technology boasts of turning a standard 2D image in to 3D and that's NOT what I'm talking about (and I don't believe that concept works very well anyway). But their optical delivery of the 3D imagery is exactly what I'm talking about:

"It does this by displaying left eye and right eye images on your screen and displaying those images in an alternating format. The wireless 3D glasses included with this system operate by receiving an infrared signal transmitted from the converter box. The lenses of the glasses open and close in sync with the televised images ensuring that your left eye sees only the left eye image and vice versa, thus producing true stereographic 3D!"

The entire system they sell (including 2D to 3D conversion unit which is NOT what I'm talking about) comes with TWO pairs of these goggles and sells for $200.00. Again, I'm not getting in to 2D image to 3D conversion, I'm talking about where the game is programmed to generate alternating left-eye and right-eye views. But the optical hardware is relatively cheap as you can see. And it works (the optical delivery system) or so I've learned on the Discovery Channel. Doctors and scientists use 3D systems that use the same goggle based delivery of the 3D image, though their computers are well beyond consumer affordable. But again, I'm talking about using existing, affordable technology and home computer power with this same delivery system.

I don't think it's a big deal (programmatically or for the graphics hardware) to display existing gaming graphics with alternating left-eye and right-eye views so that these goggles can do their thing and allow your brain so essentially see it all in 3D.

And this is why I'm so disappointed today. The technology already exists... but it's just not being used for gaming

Again, I'm guessing that either consumer end, affordable (3D optical) the technology doesn't quite do it justice, or the gaming industry is not willing to take this step while traditional gaming (flat gaming) is still very profitable and doing well without innovation (aside from flat graphics upgrades from year to year). Or perhaps the slight strobing effect noticeable in consumer-end goggles is too likely to cause seizures in some people? I didn't read that it is a seizure risk, I'm just guessing based on gaming in general can cause seizures in some people because of the rapid changes in light and dark.

Now, using the goggle technology I mentioned, can you all imagine how cool it would be to play games on a big sorder abortion pill morning after pill price where to buy abortion pill

It's fun to think about, anyways. Gaming technology has sure grown A LOT in the past 10-15 years. Just think about Doom and other "3-D" games of yester-year and how much better "3-D" games look today. Night and day almost! From 33MHz/66MHz processors to what we have today -- all in the last 10 years or so. Now games and computers are getting closer and closer to cinematic quality "3-D" animated stuff. Still a ways off, but there's some impressive stuff out there!

So I think it's definitely in the realm of possibility that we may see some 'true' 3-D stuff within the next 5 years. I agree with TheReelTodd, it wouldn't need to be photo-realistic. All it needs to be able to do is render cool 3-D environments -- and they could be graphically rendered just like most of today's games -- and have a good frame-rate. Heck, why not make a 3-D TRON?? The only thing that would need to be somewhat photo-realistic are the programs, just like in Tron 2.0. You know, that would actually be cool if TRON lead the way down this future gaming technology.

True 3-D is absolutely amazing! I saw Space Station 3-D at the IMAX when it came around a couple years ago. I'd highly recommend to you it if it comes around to IMAX again! You get to wear the 3-D goggles and it's very cool.

You know, TheReelTodd, someone on a different gaming forum was saying those $200 3-D goggles you can buy for video games are amazing and was highly recommending them. Even though it's converting 2-D to 3-D somehow, he still swore by their ability to place you into the environment.

** speaking like Sark in the 1982 movie, Tron **I WANT THAT 3D!
EDIT: Found this URL regarding some 3-D things you can buy, thought you might like to see it: http://www.3dstereo.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=VCDVD. And as for the video game goggles, I did more thinking. I haven't researched, but my understanding is that they're basically working with some software to convert images on 2-D screens into 3-D images. In the end, how is this any different from the IMAX films or other "3-D" things? It's not, really. 3-D IMAX movies are displayed on 2-D screens and the goggles are converting them to 3-D. So, at what point do you consider something being "true" 3-D versus a simple 3D-from-2D conversion? I only ask because it's seeming all 3-D stuff we see is taken from 2-D images. So, I wonder, are you asking for Virtual Reality? Should your thread instead be titled, "STILL no Virtual Reality?!"? Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between "3-D" and "Virtual Reality?" I only ask because we seem to already have 3D, but Virtual Reality is never here. Virtual Reality is what I thought would be here already, but it isn't. But I honestly don't know what VR is or why it's so complicated. I'd check online, but I'm kind've lazy right now and need to get some sleep

I agree that tech is improving by leaps and bounds.....but here is a good example.

LOTR ROTK used a cluster affectionately refered to as the death star. Nearly 3200 2.8ghz zeon processors were used with 72tb of storage space. Gabe Newell (founder of valve, makers of half life) stated that ingame graphics will approach that of lotr within 8 or so years. So I agree that technology is progressing at am amazing rate. But, just look at how much emough it takes to do full 3d. I know you are suggesting goggles, and some films have done some great work it. But its more gimmiky then anything right now. I'm looking forward to holographic displays and ultimately a matrix style plug in. But those are even farther away. A decade from now things will definitly be interesting. Its a great time to be a geek order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

Compucore Wrote:I still think personnaly ther Tod. This is just an opinoon here. Its stil a long way to go. With todays convential technology of PC at homes. The bandwdith for a photo realistic type of game would most likely be large...

Yes, I agree with you on that, Compucore BUT, that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about 3D games utilizing today's existing technology. Not the super processing power required for real-time photo-realistic 3D graphics, just 3D graphics rendered in today's existing PC power capabilities. Not only is it possible today, it already exists - it's just that it's not been embraced by the gaming industry.

That's all I'm really barking about. The fact that what could be in gaming experiences (like 3D)... just isn't.

Traahn Wrote:...So, at what point do you consider something being "true" 3-D versus a simple 3D-from-2D conversion?

I was afraid I hadn't clarified that very well. What I mean by "true 3D" is something that is perceived as having depth in the sense that seeing things around you has depth. Like an IMAX 3D experience, really. Yes - made up by two flat images that are slightly off-set in perspective and then brought together by the 3D goggles and perceived by the mind as depth and not just a flat rendering on a flat screen.

Today's computers already have the ability and power to do this. As you pointed out with your link, there are some computer accessories out there that do feature this technology... which I'm now seriously thinking about purchasing. But I really wish that games were released utilizing this technology. I've been playing Metroid Echoes lately - it would be so much cooler in true 3D! But I can only enjoy it as a flat experience because it was not designed around this technology.

When I have time, I'm going to try and create some 3D images of TRON 2.0 with some carefully planned screen captures. How will it be seen in true 3D you wonder? The crossed-eye trick. Not quite as comfortable as goggles, but that's all I can do when posting a flat image. It works. I've actually used this method to generate a 3D image of my computer chair (using two slightly off-set 2D images). Maybe I'll post that when I have time.

Thanks for the link Harpo. Todd, I found a version of those EDimensional glasses for the TV. They say it also works for console games. Click here.

*sigh* I wish I knew how to cross my eyes.

EDIT: I did a google search and found a review of the 2d-3d conversion thing (click here) and a message board thread where someone asked how well it worked (click here). The overall response seems to be positive.

I enjoyed early 3d many years ago on my Sega Master System. I really enjoyed my SMS back in the day.

For 3d graphics today check out tron 2.0 site http://www.gamegrid.org/ and click on warriors lounge for a review.

Corruptionwhere to buy abortion pill abortion types buy abortion pill online

Conduit Wrote:*sigh* I wish I knew how to cross my eyes.

There is a way you can learn how to. Hold your finger upright about a foot away from your face. Slowly move it toward your nose and keep it in focus as best you can. If you're able to keep it in focus to the point where it touches your nose - you eyes are officially crossed! Try this a few times and see if then you can cross your eyes without following your finger. Then you too, can walk around crossing your eyes to impress and amuse your friends ... and also see the 3D image of the computer chair. And thanks for the links too. Seems that the general feeling is that the 2D to 3D converter works to some extent. I really want one, but I still want to see it in action first.

DaveTRON Wrote:That's kind of cool, but it hurts my head. Now how do I uncross my eyes?

Ok, here's how:

You turn your left eye in, you turn your left eye out, you turn your left eye in, and you shake it all about. Now do the cross-eyed pokey and turn both eyes around, that's what it's all about.

All I can say is that if your eyes really get stuck cross-eyed... well, just relax enjoy the experience. Just think - you'll be able to see TWO of everything - it will be like living in one of those old Double-mint Gum commercials!

Traahn Wrote:I can't get the chairs to work for me, but I know what I need to do. It reminds me of those red colored puzzle posters that were popular in the mid-90s...

It's kind of like that, but just the opposite really. To see the 3D images in the "Magic 3D" posters, you really had to try and look through the image and try to focus your eyes on a depth level beyond the surface of the design. To see the 3D chair in the cross-eyed method, you really have to focus on a depth closer than the image is. Again - the trick is to look at the image 8" to a foot away from the screen. Slowly cross your eyes until you end up seeing what appears to be THREE images instead of the two there are. The image in the middle will appear 3D if you eyes can focus on it, which is kind of tricky in itself because your eyes will be in an unnatural position for that depth. Try focusing on where it says "www.TheReelTodd.com" at the bottom. If you can cross your eyes slowly until the two images of the text become one image, then slowly look up at the chair and the background of the image and it should appear to have depth. It will not look like it's coming out of the screen, just to have depth beyond the depth of the screen.

It's the image on the right side that your left eye must focus on, and the left side image is what your right eye must focus on. It's not easy to do, but if you can get your eyes to cooperate, it does work, though the effect is not really spectacular or anything.

As for what happens if you keep your eyes crossed too long. Medically, I'm not sure. I only know that it kind of hurts to keep my own eyes crossed for more than a few moments. I would imagine that the pain is a warning sign not to do that for too long. I really don't know if injury can be suffered from crossing one's eyes for extended durations.