22 replies to this topic

[Kaysyn]

I would like to play the game in 3D when it comes out but not sure what to get. The only thing I can find is 3D Vision kit from Nvidia.
Is that all I need or is there something else that will work better?
I have never done anything with 3D on a PC so not sure what to get.
Any information would help.

[thread moved from Q&A to Technical Support as that board is better suited for answering this question- Arduin]

Edited by Arduin, 08 February 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[Robsy128]

The 3D Vision Kit from Nvidia is the best route to go in all honesty. I seriously wouldn't recommend any other forms of 3D on the PC. Why do I say this? Because I looked into the Nvidia 3D vision kit myself last year and it just seemed like the best option compared to others.
However, before investing in this kit, you have to make sure that you have:

An Nvidia graphics card. If you go on their site, they will tell you which ones are supported. I recommend, if you haven't got one already, getting one for around £100-£150.

A 3D monitor (the kit doesn't come with this.)

A powerful enough PC. Anything with over 4GB RAM and a really good processor.

Since you didn't post what you actually have, I just thought I should mention this, just in case :)
Anyway, the kit comes with the small 3D box that connects via usb, and one pair of glasses. It's not too expensive, either, with it being about £120 when I bought it. But, like I said, it puts a strain on your system, so make sure you have an awesome PC first :p
If you have any other questions about the kit, feel free to let me know :D

[Kaysyn]

I am using 2 GT460 cards running in sli so that should be good. My PC has 6 gigs of ram so I think that will work as well. I am using an I7 cpu. I don't have a 3D monitor so I guess I will have to get that. I am looking at ASUS VG Series VG278H. That says it comes with the glasses. One other question would be about motion sickness. I get motion sickness very easy. Have you heard of any problems with this?

[Robsy128]

Your PC passes the test ;)
And wow, that monitor looks awesome! I have an acer monitor myself, and that handles 3D amazingly well :) But I'd be careful if I were you. Does it say it comes with the glasses, or the complete kit? Because you need the little black box from the kit to enable 3D mode in-game. It connects directly to the wireless glasses, producing the 3D image.

If you do suffer from motion sickness, that's not a problem. With the 3D kit black box, there's a slider on the back that adjusts the 3D effect. So the 3D effect could be really deep (as if you're looking into Narnia), or minimal, with the UI hovering above the ground effectively. I hope that makes sense. But like I said, it's completely adjustable so you shouldn't feel very sick when using it.

[Kaysyn]

Thank you for all the info. You have been really helpfull. As soon as my tax return comes in I think I am going to spend some money :)

That monitor does come with everything from what I can read and it has really great reviews.

[Robsy128]

You're welcome :D And I'll see you in Guild Wars 2, when we're both playing it in 3D! :D

[stormglory]

Kaysyn said:

One other question would be about motion sickness. I get motion sickness very easy. Have you heard of any problems with this?

Motion sickness is about as variable and unpredictable as humans themselves are. What may cause it for you may not be any indication of what else may cause it. I've not heard any specific motion sickness complaints with 3D gaming, but I've definitely heard of it in gaming in general.

What causes it for you? Has it always been actual physical motion (cars, boats, aircraft) or have you ever had it happen from video games/movies etc? Have you ever seen a movie in 3D, and if so were you okay with that?

[Righteous]

Robsy128 said:

The 3D Vision Kit from Nvidia is the best route to go in all honesty.

I disagree.

NVidia solution uses shutter glasses - expensive; heavy because they need synch receiver and power supply; more prone to flicker and left/right cross-talk; reduce monitor brightness by 50% when you go into 3D mode; They need a synch transmitter; useless if you already wear glasses;

You also need a video card that can generate full resolution images at 120 frames/sec minimum. And a 120Hz monitor of course. And the nVidia drivers won't work on WinXP if you're still using that, or with Ati cards of course if you use one.

I went for a polarising monitor with TriDef drivers instead. Much simpler solution, with less components that can go wrong. Polarising glasses are light and cheap, and you can use clip on polarising filters if you already wear glasses. No flicker, much less left/right cross-talk, almost no reduction in screen brightness during 3D. It works perfectly with Windows XP, and my ancient Ati video card - which only has to generate the full rez images at 60 frames/sec minimum, instead of 120.

Polarising has its own downsides of course - vertical resolution is halved, which I only notice when there is very small text (which is readable but blocky), and the range of viewing angles is reduced (no good if you duck and weave in your chair a lot while playing).

I prefer the polarising pros and cons, to the shutter-glasses pros and cons. Maybe you are the opposite, but you should at least know that there's a choice.

Edited by Righteous, 08 February 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Quad]

Robsy128 said:

The 3D Vision Kit from Nvidia is the best route to go in all honesty. I seriously wouldn't recommend any other forms of 3D on the PC. Why do I say this? Because I looked into the Nvidia 3D vision kit myself last year and it just seemed like the best option compared to others.
However, before investing in this kit, you have to make sure that you have:

An Nvidia graphics card. If you go on their site, they will tell you which ones are supported. I recommend, if you haven't got one already, getting one for around £100-£150.

A 3D monitor (the kit doesn't come with this.)

A powerful enough PC. Anything with over 4GB RAM and a really good processor.

Since you didn't post what you actually have, I just thought I should mention this, just in case :)
Anyway, the kit comes with the small 3D box that connects via usb, and one pair of glasses. It's not too expensive, either, with it being about £120 when I bought it. But, like I said, it puts a strain on your system, so make sure you have an awesome PC first :p
If you have any other questions about the kit, feel free to let me know :D

I'm not saying you're wrong, but "last year" is a long time for technological advancements, especially with computers.

[Kaysyn]

There are many FPS I can't play because of feeling sick. Quake was the worst one for me. Forget about being a passenger in a car. I have to drive everywere. I can't do boats but for some reason planes don't bother me to bad. Some 3D movies I have to look away when there is a lot of movement up close. I am just worried if I spend a lot of money on a 3D system to find out I will feel sick after a couple of hours of play will be really annoying.

[Lord Sojar]

Righteous said:

I disagree.

NVidia solution uses shutter glasses - expensive; heavy because they need synch receiver and power supply; more prone to flicker and left/right cross-talk; reduce monitor brightness by 50% when you go into 3D mode; They need a synch transmitter; useless if you already wear glasses;

You also need a video card that can generate full resolution images at 120 frames/sec minimum. And a 120Hz monitor of course. And the nVidia drivers won't work on WinXP if you're still using that, or with Ati cards of course if you use one.

I went for a polarising monitor with TriDef drivers instead. Much simpler solution, with less components that can go wrong. Polarising glasses are light and cheap, and you can use clip on polarising filters if you already wear glasses. No flicker, much less left/right cross-talk, almost no reduction in screen brightness during 3D. It works perfectly with Windows XP, and my ancient Ati video card - which only has to generate the full rez images at 60 frames/sec minimum, instead of 120.

Polarising has its own downsides of course - vertical resolution is halved, which I only notice when there is very small text (which is readable but blocky), and the range of viewing angles is reduced (no good if you duck and weave in your chair a lot while playing).

I prefer the polarising pros and cons, to the shutter-glasses pros and cons. Maybe you are the opposite, but you should at least know that there's a choice.

Incorrect.  


nVidia's new system is far superior to ANY 3D tech on the market, period. (but it comes at a cost)

They overdrive the backlight at 120Hz on supported monitors, which decreases shutter period.  Alignment is done at the driver and hardware level, with the PhysX hardware running the needed calculations to keep things in sync.  If a GPU that can do over 1 billion calculations per second can't handle this, I dunno what can.... :p  Cross talk on this new method is basically a null and void issue, provided the game has Very Good or higher rated support.  The glasses are significantly larger (for fitting over those who wear glasses) and lighter than last generation.  They also allow significantly more light in, due to the massive improvement in shutter constriction ratio.  They no longer need the built in IR transmitter, that's now integrated into the monitor itself.  


The TriDef solution has significant cross-talk issues, actually, but in a different way.  While you won't be seeing what the other eye was meant to see, you will at times have 3D effect drop out in random places on the screen... which is very annoying and ruins immersion.   In professional testing, it was a well observed problem plaguing many titles.  The TriDef solution doesn't have official support from AMD either, so drivers sometimes don't play nice.   Blur is also HEAVILY increased, screen image quality is decreased substantially.  In a text heavy game like GW2 (it's still text heavy, don't let them fool you) this would be suicidal to do.  The Asus VG278H monitor is unbelievable when paired with the the Vision 2.0 glasses and a good nVidia card.

One thing we can agree on is expense; it's quite high. However, 3D is a niche market and an extreme luxury.  Getting the best comes at a cost I suppose, and the technology was quite pricey for nVidia to develop so well.  So... it's justified, at the very least.

Kaysyn said:

There are many FPS I can't play because of feeling  sick. Quake was the worst one for me. Forget about being a passenger in  a car. I have to drive everywere. I can't do boats but for some reason  planes don't bother me to bad. Some 3D movies I have to look away when  there is a lot of movement up close. I am just worried if I spend a lot  of money on a 3D system to find out I will feel sick after a couple of  hours of play will be really annoying.

Passive 3D will yield more motion sickness compared to active shutter.  The eye sees continuous movement using an active shutter based system, but the brain doesn't, so the motion sickness is reduced.  While the motion can be perceived as continuous at sufficient frames, the optic nerve synapses can fire (and the axons can transmit) faster than most in the body.  This allows a huge amount of "bandwidth" to traverse to the brain.  The brain devotes a huge amount of processing power to optical centers, and as a result, just because you don't visually perceive it, doesn't mean your brain doesn't know it's there.  Because there is an active shutter closing off the light, even at 120x per second.... it doesn't matter.  The brain can EASILY see this, and as a result, that feeling of constant, unrelenting motion is reduced or eliminated in a huge part of the population.  This is called image perception vs visual perception.  The former is a cognitive function, not a visual input function.  We can image perceive at least 1/220th of a second, likely even more.  That means your brain can "see" the black part of the shutter, even though you don't visual perceive it.  It's a weird phenomena, but it plays to your specific advantage.   There are those people that are extremely sensitive, but for them, even non 3D causes sickness... so if that's not you, it's safe to bet that active shutter is a fairly safe manner of 3D given your condition.

Edited by Lord Sojar, 08 February 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[Robsy128]

Ah, that is one thing I would bring up, actually, so thanks for reminding me :p I played Aion in 3D, and I had to turn the 3D settings to minimum to be able to read the text. I have no idea whether Arenanet have tackled this problem themselves, and Aion was still in 3D, but it was a slight issue.

[Lord Sojar]

Robsy128 said:

Ah, that is one thing I would bring up, actually, so thanks for reminding me :p I played Aion in 3D, and I had to turn the 3D settings to minimum to be able to read the text. I have no idea whether Arenanet have tackled this problem themselves, and Aion was still in 3D, but it was a slight issue.

Shouldn't be an issue in GW2 using Vision 2.0.  The huge increase in light and new method of shutter closing (open for a much longer period of time and shutters never fully closing, thus allowing some light to pass constantly) makes text a lot more readable.  Image sharpness is also increased, since the shutters are allowed to stay open far longer (in terms of image perception as I explained above)

[Robsy128]

Vision 2.0? Is this hardware based or software based? I googled it, but I got the results of 3D vision with 2 glasses...

[MisterB]

Kaysyn said:

There are many FPS I can't play because of feeling sick. Quake was the worst one for me. Forget about being a passenger in a car. I have to drive everywere. I can't do boats but for some reason planes don't bother me to bad. Some 3D movies I have to look away when there is a lot of movement up close. I am just worried if I spend a lot of money on a 3D system to find out I will feel sick after a couple of hours of play will be really annoying.

Try to find a tech demo in your area of the 3D solution you choose. Consumer electronics stores are a likely candidate; they often have displays or viewing areas for 3D. Find one using shutters, and bring along a CG movie, or if they have a 3D gaming setup, you can just view it there. Alternately, check your vendor's return policy before you purchase.

3D perception is subjective per person, even more so than our other perceptions. I also get motion sickness with certain forms of 3D combined with low frame rates. Most forms of 3D technology are only semi-effective with my brain; up to half of the time I still see dual imaging or ghosting. However, I did manage to view nVidia's GW2 display at PAX 2010, and that was by far the most effective 3D tech I have personally experienced. It still made me uncomfortable to view, but the 3D effect was absolute(I didn't see any ghosting or dual imaging using that system.).

Edited by MisterB, 08 February 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[Lord Sojar]

Robsy128 said:

Vision 2.0? Is this hardware based or software based? I googled it, but I got the results of 3D vision with 2 glasses...

http://www.nvidia.co...-glasses-kit-us

Hardware for sure.

[Robsy128]

Fair enough :p I'm stuck with version 1, but I'm happy with it :) If I can get Guild Wars 2 in 3D, I'm happy :D

[The Comfy Chair]

I'll play GW2 in 3d when autostereoscopic screens are nice and cheap :p

So, 2016? :D

[dhatcher1]

There is a cheaper shutter alternative to those expensive shutter glasses.

[Righteous]

Lord Sojar said:

nVidia's new system is far superior to ANY 3D tech on the market, period. (but it comes at a cost)

You could argue that for PC-based systems (I'd still disagree) - but better than any 3D tech on the market? No way.

Lord Sojar said:

The TriDef solution has significant cross-talk issues, actually, but in a different way.  While you won't be seeing what the other eye was meant to see, you will at times have 3D effect drop out in random places on the screen... which is very annoying and ruins immersion.   In professional testing, it was a well observed problem plaguing many titles.  The TriDef solution doesn't have official support from AMD either, so drivers sometimes don't play nice.   Blur is also HEAVILY increased, screen image quality is decreased substantially.  In a text heavy game like GW2 (it's still text heavy, don't let them fool you) this would be suicidal to do.

I can only say I've never observed any of these "issues" on my system.

"TriDef solution doesn't have official support from AMD"? It doesn't need any. Games and 3D systems do not need support from AMD or anyone else.
They just need to work with Direct3D, and game developers need to avoid using phoney 3D effects that don't look right when viewed in true 3D.

"Blur is HEAVILY increased"? No.
"3D effect drop out in random places"? No.
"Screen image quality decreased substantially"? Well it's lower resolution than the equivalent shutter system for a given screen size, if that's what they mean. (It's stating the obvious - like saying a 1920x1080 monitor has more pixels than a 1280x800). Regardless, I find in practice that beautiful graphics still look beautiful. "Substantial decrease"? No.

Perhaps it's specific to the titles they tested?
Or perhaps these "professional tests" were commissioned by nVidia and/or performed by nVidia staff.

Personally I mostly only play GW1 these days - which looks magnificent, apart from the small niggle that player/enemy names are 2D, and therefore don't appear at the same depth as the enemy/player. I've only played maybe 5 other games with this system, but they all looked great except where they've "cheated" with 2D effects that don't work when viewed in 3D (these are problematic no matter what 3D system you use). I'm not expecting any such cheats in GW2 since it was designed properly at an early stage, to look good in 3D. Oh, I also watch movies in 3D on my system too, and they look great.

Not that my system is "perfect" of course, just that I consider it preferable to the alternatives.

By the way, there is another issue with 3D generally, apart from the possibility of motion sickness: 3D gives some people headaches and/or eyestrain. Your eyes want to refocus on objects that appear to be at various depths - but actually your eyes need to remain focussed on the screen the whole time. This conflict can lead to headaches - but it may take longer to feel this than motion sickness (you need to try watching 3D systems for a decent amount of time, when testing them out)

Edited by Righteous, 09 February 2012 - 03:16 PM.

[Lord Sojar]

Righteous said:

You could argue that for PC-based systems (I'd still disagree) - but better than any 3D tech on the market? No way.


I can only say I've never observed any of these "issues" on my system.

"TriDef solution doesn't have official support from AMD"? It doesn't need any. Games and 3D systems do not need support from AMD or anyone else.
They just need to work with Direct3D, and game developers need to avoid using phoney 3D effects that don't look right when viewed in true 3D.

"Blur is HEAVILY increased"? No.
"3D effect drop out in random places"? No.
"Screen image quality decreased substantially"? Well it's lower resolution than the equivalent shutter system for a given screen size, if that's what they mean. (It's stating the obvious - like saying a 1920x1080 monitor has more pixels than a 1280x800). Regardless, I find in practice that beautiful graphics still look beautiful. "Substantial decrease"? No.

Perhaps it's specific to the titles they tested?
Or perhaps these "professional tests" were commissioned by nVidia and/or performed by nVidia staff.

Personally I mostly only play GW1 these days - which looks magnificent, apart from the small niggle that player/enemy names are 2D, and therefore don't appear at the same depth as the enemy/player. I've only played maybe 5 other games with this system, but they all looked great except where they've "cheated" with 2D effects that don't work when viewed in 3D (these are problematic no matter what 3D system you use). I'm not expecting any such cheats in GW2 since it was designed properly at an early stage, to look good in 3D. Oh, I also watch movies in 3D on my system too, and they look great.

Not that my system is "perfect" of course, just that I consider it preferable to the alternatives.

By the way, there is another issue with 3D generally, apart from the possibility of motion sickness: 3D gives some people headaches and/or eyestrain. Your eyes want to refocus on objects that appear to be at various depths - but actually your eyes need to remain focussed on the screen the whole time. This conflict can lead to headaches - but it may take longer to feel this than motion sickness (you need to try watching 3D systems for a decent amount of time, when testing them out)

No, Vision 2 is superior to any 3D system current at market level.  Find me one that offers equivalent effects and brightness and doesn't degrade image quality substantially (any polarized solution does, unfortunately)

Now, as far as solutions that haven't reached market readiness?  Perhaps there is a better one... but grass is always greener right?  Just the same, Purdue has some really nifty CPU thermal compound composed of self aligning and displacing carbon nanotubes that has a 99.998% thermal conductivity rating.  I want some of that, but alas, not ready for market at all yet.  :(  

As for the professional tests being performed by nVidia staff or being commissioned by them...  not really sure why they would be, especially at the really small, independent tech sites.  This always seems to be a conspiracy with them... but never with AMD... funny how that is.  I guess nVidia is the spawn of Satan?  :(

Also, perhaps you've been lucky with your particular setup.  Those issues I reported were present in various ways across a good range of popular titles.  It came down (and you sort of mentioned this) effects present in the game, etc.

But, the "phoney" effects you claim is a bogus claim at best.  Most games aren't designed for 3D, and you can't just hackjob it in.  nVidia typically has to go in and customize a lot of driver optimizations for a particular title, adjusting 3D effect angles, creating custom rules for specific effects, etc.  These effects aren't "phoney," they just aren't designed for 3D.  It should in no way be mandatory for a developer to put in 3D ready stuff... it's still a very niche market and not worth the money or time to code other effects that are 3D friendly inherently.

This is why nVidia's solution is superior.  It takes into account these effects and games that use them, that aren't created for 3D, and customizes the 3D support to tailor it so that they do look good.  They also work hand in hand with developers to develop code and effects for many titles, ensuring excellent compatibility.  BTW, that's not unethical to do, it's good business.  AMD, not having their own 3D, can't do this; and so, "their" 3D solution will never be as good or even close to as good as nVidia's...  I don't even use 3D, but having used and experienced both forms, I can tell you with absolute certainty that defending "AMD's" implementation is a bit silly, and is just a coping mechanism.  It's like someone buying a Ford Focus and comparing it to a BMW M1, trying to claim they have any winning merits aside from cost.  Sure... you paid less... but your car gets crushed in EVERY metric other than price, because BMW took the time to tweak and adjust every aspect of the M1 for performance and luxury.  Ford... they just put out a cheap car with a decent pool of features for "Joe six pack."

dhatcher1 said:

There is a cheaper shutter alternative to those expensive shutter glasses.

^ Superior to nVidia in EVERY WAY.   :p

Edited by Lord Sojar, 09 February 2012 - 08:04 PM.

[Righteous]

Lord Sojar said:

No, Vision 2 is superior to any 3D system current at market level.  Find me one that offers equivalent effects and brightness and doesn't degrade image quality substantially (any polarized solution does, unfortunately)

There are commercially available systems that make any PC system look stupid, including nVidia's. But they cost giant amounts, and are not necessarily aimed at gaming or even the general public.

If by "market", you actually meant only PC's... or only for gaming... or only "mainstream" consumers, you might have had a point.

But you said any 3d system on the market. Which is pure BS when you look at all systems, for all markets. As I rightly pointed out.

Lord Sojar said:

As for the professional tests being performed by nVidia staff or being commissioned by them...  not really sure why they would be, especially at the really small, independent tech sites.  This always seems to be a conspiracy with them... but never with AMD... funny how that is.  I guess nVidia is the spawn of Satan?  :(

No idea what your talking about.

You said that "professional testing" proved blah blah.
I'm saying "What professional tests"? Done by who? Comparing what, with what?
Perhaps you invented these "professional tests". How would I know?

Lord Sojar said:

Also, perhaps you've been lucky with your particular setup.

Could be.

Lord Sojar said:

But, the "phoney" effects you claim is a bogus claim at best.  Most games aren't designed for 3D, and you can't just hackjob it in.

No. Games ARE designed for 3d.
Notice the "3D" in "Direct3D", which all the games use?
Direct3D is a 3D API.
Games are built using 3D models.
etc etc etc.

All PC 3D gaming setups would fail completely and utterly, if games were not designed for 3D in the first place.

Lord Sojar said:

nVidia typically has to go in and customize a lot of driver optimizations for a particular title, adjusting 3D effect angles, creating custom rules for specific effects, etc.

That is the very purest, of pure BS.

There are 3D driver tweaks that are performed for any given game, which are saved to a profile. It doesn't need nVidia to do this, anybody can do it - although for most people it's obviously easier to let someone else do it, and just download the profile.

Or did nVida recently take a giant step backwards, and create a massive, unending, and pointless amount of work for themselves?

Lord Sojar said:

These effects aren't "phoney," they just aren't designed for 3D.  It should in no way be mandatory for a developer to put in 3D ready stuff... it's still a very niche market and not worth the money or time to code other effects that are 3D friendly inherently.

I don't think you understand what effects I'm talking about.
Do you even HAVE a 3D system? Have you even USED one? If you did, you'd know what I'm talking about.

Games work fine for the most part. They're made using Direct3D. The 3D drivers and hardware work with the Direct3D objects etc (not the game directly) to give you the illusion of 3D, instead of the normal 2D rendering.

The problems are when game developers don't create everything using proper 3D models/objects. Sometimes they use 2D "cheats" - for stuff like flames, smoke, water movement, cheap shadows etc. These don't look right in 3D, because they are not modelled in 3D.

To fix that stuff properly, nVidia would either have to be rewriting other people's game software for them... or pouring huge amounts of resources into coding work-arounds into their drivers for every game that has a hiccup.
As if that's going to happen.

Edited by Righteous, 09 February 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Lord Sojar]

Righteous said:

*Lots of stuff*

I hate quote wars with a passion.  Let me just tell you a few things that may enlighten you.  

While there are commercially available solutions superior to nVidia's Vision 2, these are not what I meant when I said best available.  I meant best available on the market (independent consumer market is typically implied, we don't compare Xeon's to Corei7 2600ks around here, why compare non personal computing solutions here either?) 3D solution.   I did, however, imply best solution for consumer screens in general.  nVidia's 3D movie playback using the Vision 2 system is impeccable as well.  To quote you... "Have you even USED one?"

Professional testing suggests a review site using a professional style of testing, validation and review.  Most of the decent tech sites do this.  The reviews are available, have a peek around.

Games are not designed for 3D inherently.  There are many sprite and particle effects that aren't inherently supported for 3D display.  3D engine is different from practical 3D display.  Just because "3D" is in the title doesn't mean that things will practically display that way.  3D imagery is a very different ballpark than 3D rendering.  3D rendering is, simply put, rendering a model in a manner that suggests a 3rd dimensionality, wherein there is a apparently field of depth.  It also suggests the 3rd dimensionality is able to be navigated, or is at least implied to the eye as being able to be traversed.  3D imagery is a very different beast entirely.  You aren't creating the illusion of depth with code, you are using actual optics to induce a state of altered depth perception.  The use of lensing and other real world tactics is performed here, and is as much hardware driven as it is software driven.   Shutter is but one form, and certainly has some downsides (which nVidia has gone to address quite well)  Please don't confuse the ambiguous use of the term "3D" to mean that everything can be blanketed under that terminology.  

As for how nVidia operates internally for 3D driver support and custom modifications to each game.... yes, they do this, especially for the big name games.  They have developers that go to each studio to assist in creating applicable graphical elements to better fit a 3D imagery immersion system.  They have a driver department devoted solely to 3D Surround and it's implementation and tweaks.  This division is extremely sizable; a step backwards isn't the term.  This is a profit driver for nVidia, not just in the consumer space.  They are a world leader in 3D technology and work hand in hand with companies like Samsung, LG, etc to create new foundational structures for 3D.

I know the inner workings of nVidia quite well, having worked for them.  As a result, I do understand the fundamentals and many of the finer details of the 3D systems and their implementation.  Also, having a PhD in physics doesn't hurt for understanding how optics work... but I digress.  

Sprites and particle effects can be made to look 3D, and we are getting to the stage where these particles are 3D in engine.  The problem you cite is an optimization issue.  The game developers are creating these effects based on currently available hardware and its limitational constraints; they are not, as you so inadequately put, "cheating."  

If you believe nVidia doesn't help write in graphics engine code and that they don't custom hook engine code... then you're very misinformed I'm afraid.  nVidia has a huge department devoted entirely to the logistics behind coding explicitly and implicitly for graphics engines and effects.  This carries over between their various driver divisions and the teams therein.  nVidia has the resources to pour into driver optimization, and they do in extremely well (arguably top 3 in the industry for optimization).  You act as if it sinks their net margins into the ground by doing this... but what you're failing to realize, or neglecting to mention, is that employees have varied and numerous roles within computer science centric areas.  nVidia sets up their employee structure such that, there is overlap in areas that have lots of redundant functionality or purpose and give many employees ambassador style roles to other divisions within a department.  There is a very open, creative environment at nVidia, such that the teams can relate not just inter-personally, but on a team to team environment and a team to division environment.  This is efficient, because nVidia is involved in such diverse markets with so many variables.  

Those resources, I can tell you with absolute certainty (read: 100% certain) are devoted to this very task.  This is why nVidia constantly improves a games compatibility rating with 3D Surround whenever possible, especially on bigger, AA or AAA titles.  It requires a lot of work to really optimize games to run in 3D and have a full, effect filled world at minimal to no loss in picture quality.

Edited by Lord Sojar, 09 February 2012 - 11:06 PM.