3D PS3 Titles Will Suffer Visual Downgrade, GT5 a Casualty?

[Mr Latte]

TokyoDrift

Try being imaginative in how the games industry can incorporate this along with 3D controllers.
Sony have the potential to completely change gaming with "Move" and "3D".
Now I dont know if they will be combined in games together in the near future.

However a user can control in a 3D enviroment like never before with "Move" giving real body interaction with the game. Now factor into that 3D vision as well.

Not only is the user experiencing 3D control via realy body interaction but the onscreen action is in 3D. If you have depth in control over body movement tracking and visual depth from a 3DTV thats a very powerful combination. To me its got the potential to be a much bigger possible change to gaming than HD ever was if not even one of the biggest changes to gaming ever? The buzz hasnt started yet as its not out yet.

This my man has the ability to become the closest thing to all that "Virtual Reality" stuff we seen in the 90's. Difference is without a massive big headset and with 90s level of graphics.

 

[machschnel]

 

[Soundtrack]

^Exactly. I’d like my next HDTV to be easily calibrated to REC 709 standards and to handle 1080P/24 flawlessly with full off switches for all the unnecessary marketing oriented features:tup:

Who gives a stuff. GT5 could be in 320x240 and 256 colours and I wouldnt care.

It's the game that counts, hence why I'm still plaing GT2 on my PSP instead of GTPSP. All that matters is the game play.

Probably what Nintendo had in mind when they choose another road for their “next-gen” console.💡

Without going to your extreme suggested pixel count, I do agree, and wonder how many people around here would drop 2D 1080P for 2D 720P if that could offer such things as better dynamic time and weather...

 

[abaxas]

^Exactly. I’d like my next HDTV to be easily calibrated to REC 709 standards and to handle 1080P/24 flawlessly with full off switches for all the unnecessary marketing oriented features:tup:



Probably what Nintendo had in mind when they choose another road for their “next-gen” console.💡

Without going to your extreme suggested pixel count, I do agree, and wonder how many people around here would drop 2D 1080P for 2D 720P if that could offer such things as better dynamic time and weather...

Everytime!

The more there is 'in the game' the better.

 

[drivatar]

Tearing. The DF article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-making-of-ps3-3d-article) states that tearing would be even more distracting in 3D.

The images are automatically converted to HDMI 3D output at 59.94Hz but you can use any frame-rate you want as long as you synchronise to the vertical refresh. That's really important because frame-tearing looks really bad in 3D; the tear will be in one image and not the other, so it's much worse than normal frame tearing.

 

[ICEMAN_ZIDANE]

i play my games now on a normal tv (all my ps3 settings are on low ) and the GT5 graphics (in the videos) are awesome
its enough for me
much people which say :its bad that 3d will not run on FHD ...dont have a FHD tv lol haha
(we have a FHD TV too ,Sony Bravia 40 FHD 200hertz )

VERY IMPORTANT: you all speak here about a topic which will not be important for you because you dont will have a 3D tv
OMG

 

[Mr Latte]

VERY IMPORTANT: you all speak here about a topic which will not be important for you because you dont will have a 3D tv
OMG

So you say all of your PS3 settings are on low, then does that mean your not allowed to talk about HDTVs or HD gamming?
Do people have to own or intend to own a 3DTV to have an opinion?

If anything 1080p in GT5 is little benifit over 720p and is overrated as their is so little difference in it regards the game.
At least 3D might offer something new/different in the game.

 

[Stonemonkey]

People need to stop doing pixels calculations and misinform others. All there is to do for 3D is to repeat each frame with a second separate Z-buffer at the end of the pipeline, sure it might lower the performance due to the fact that you cannot pre-process obvious occlusion before the texturizing stage, but you won't lose half the picture quality. I'm no fan of 3D, but I'm no fan of false information more.

And I'm no fan of jibberish.

 

[Moglet]

They don't, actually. Not the games division.

If they actually released the bloody game they might.

 

[eSZee]

If they actually released the bloody game they might.

GT5 will not get them back in the black, nor will 3d TVs.

 

[Griffith500]

Tearing. The DF article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-making-of-ps3-3d-article) states that tearing would be even more distracting in 3D.

The tearing visible there may well be a result of the camera and display being out of sync. It's impossible to tell without actually being there.

EDIT:

People need to stop doing pixels calculations and misinform others. All there is to do for 3D is to repeat each frame with a second separate Z-buffer at the end of the pipeline, sure it might lower the performance due to the fact that you cannot pre-process obvious occlusion before the texturizing stage, but you won't lose half the picture quality. I'm no fan of 3D, but I'm no fan of false information more.

What do you actually mean by that? I mean, how is it possible to use the same scene information, and just swap between z-buffers every other frame? Surely you need two sets of everything?

This is my understanding of the typical pipeline (it gets a bit crazy with the rasteriser, since there are so many implementations nowadays.)

1. Load Geometry (vertices)
2. Light Vertices in world-space (once)
3. Transform to camera-space (twice)
4. Create primitives via geometry shader (twice)
5. Project primitives to the base of view frustum (twice)
6. Rasterisation / scan conversion (twice!!)
   • Visibility determination, e.g. z-buffering, clipping, culling etc.
   • Texturing, e.g. diffuse, bump, alpha, reflections etc.
   • Pixel shaders and other full-screen effects (e.g. AA) handled here.
   • etc.
7. Pass pixel data to ROP for display.

Where in there can you save having to render twice, for two different viewpoints? The visibility determination (z-buffer) is the first step in rasterising! Since rasterisation takes the projected polygons' x,y coordinates and decides which ones occupy which pixels, and what colour they are etc., essentially we're dealing with two completely different sets of data for the same time step - or am I missing something?

Unless Sony have found a new way of rasterising multiple render targets at once, I don't know how there won't be a proportional performance hit with 120 fps. I guess what would happen, is that the scene would be rendered alternatively for each eye at the correct game time, rather than pausing time whilst the engine renders both viewpoints - unless there are issues with brain malfunction from watching this. I'd wager it'd look a lot smoother, anyway.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

Rasterisation

Is dat what happens Mon when you be swaying to de Reggae beat Mon?

Good times Mon, when you be rasterized

 

[Stonemonkey]

The tearing visible there may well be a result of the camera and display being out of sync. It's impossible to tell without actually being there.

EDIT:


What do you actually mean by that? I mean, how is it possible to use the same scene information, and just swap between z-buffers every other frame? Surely you need two sets of everything?

This is my understanding of the typical pipeline (it gets a bit crazy with the rasteriser, since there are so many implementations nowadays.)

1. Load Geometry (vertices)
2. Light Vertices in world-space (once)
3. Transform to camera-space (twice)
4. Create primitives via geometry shader (twice)
5. Project primitives to the base of view frustum (twice)
6. Rasterisation / scan conversion (twice!!)
   • Visibility determination, e.g. z-buffering, clipping, culling etc.
   • Texturing, e.g. diffuse, bump, alpha, reflections etc.
   • Pixel shaders and other full-screen effects (e.g. AA) handled here.
   • etc.
7. Pass pixel data to ROP for display.

Where in there can you save having to render twice, for two different viewpoints? The visibility determination (z-buffer) is the first step in rasterising! Since rasterisation takes the projected polygons' x,y coordinates and decides which ones occupy which pixels, and what colour they are etc., essentially we're dealing with two completely different sets of data for the same time step - or am I missing something?

Unless Sony have found a new way of rasterising multiple render targets at once, I don't know how there won't be a proportional performance hit with 120 fps. I guess what would happen, is that the scene would be rendered alternatively for each eye at the correct game time, rather than pausing time whilst the engine renders both viewpoints - unless there are issues with brain malfunction from watching this. I'd wager it'd look a lot smoother, anyway.

There is some information that can be re-used, as you said lighting, although specular lighting should be dependent on camera position but you could probably get away with that. Any sorting would only need to be done once and things like shadowmaps and environment maps only once (if they're even updated each frame) and probably some sort of occlusion.
I have no idea if there would be any effect from alternately rendering/displaying each side in time rather than for simultaneous display.

 

[JohnBM01]

Let me be as professional and as brief as possible... I wouldn't be surprised. I'll say it like this- giving this graphical downgrade shouldn't be a serious concern. Giving a game very realistic graphics and making it all work fine is always good. Sometimes, however, you need to downsize and downgrade. Look at it this way- the possibility of downgraded graphics COULD result in possibly being able to add certain things to make it better. You know like... weather effects, maybe? Possibly even time cycles? Sometimes, downgrading leads you to think differently and sample newer things. So maybe this can be a positive down the road.

And please... no 3D. People talked about a number of things being a waste of disc space, well, red/cyan 3D is one of them. It's something someone HAD to revive, just like having Cyndi Lauper escape her '80s time capsule just to annoy us minutes at a time.

 

[Moglet]

GT5 will not get them back in the black, nor will 3d TVs.

It was a joke.

There's a distinct lack of a sense of humour in this part of the site...

 

[Kryz11]

It was a joke.

There's a distinct lack of a sense of humour in this part of the site...

Everyone is tired of waiting, so a lot of people lacks jokes 👎

 

[The_Paladin]

I really hope that GT5 doesnt have any visual downgrade by the 3d, i dont care about 3d in this gen, its just too soon and most of people dont have the TVs for that yet

 

[eSZee]

I really hope that GT5 doesnt have any visual downgrade by the 3d, i dont care about 3d in this gen, its just too soon and most of people dont have the TVs for that yet

3d will not affect the normal game.

 

[RedSuinit]

Look, the screen only uses ONE resolution at a time, it shows the screen for the right eye, then the screen for the left eye.

out of 120hz (frames per second) 60 of those frames will be right eye, 60 will be left. Hence why the active shutter glasses flash at 120hz and are synched with the tv. Hence the right eye only sees right eye frames, and the left eye only sees left eye frames.

 

[Perkel]

first thing first fat Ps3 have HDMI 1.2 !!!1080p in 3d at 60 fps won't happen ! it's imposibble on hdmi 1.2.. 720p at most in 30 fps.

 

[Mr Latte]

3d will not affect the normal game.

My only concern is they havnt reduced car numbers on track to 8 to accomodate the overheads 3D would of needed.
Not a single 3D video Im aware of has shown 16 cars yet.

first thing first fat Ps3 have HDMI 1.2 !!!1080p in 3d at 60 fps won't happen ! it's imposibble on hdmi 1.2.. 720p at most in 30 fps.

Incorrect all PS3 will be upgraded to include via firmware the 3D packets used in the HDMI 3D standard.
Superstardust 3D has already been confirmed as Dual 720p @ 120Hz

30FPS games @ 120Hz?
My take on this but maybe you tech wizards can do better.
Not all 3D games will manage 60fps if anything most will be 30fps so Id assume they have to use frame doubling with 30fps showing the same frame each sequence 2x (TWICE) repeatedly for both left/right eye. In doing that it would sync with the 60Hz per eye required.

 

[TokyoDrift]

TokyoDrift

Try being imaginative in how the games industry can incorporate this along with 3D controllers.
Sony have the potential to completely change gaming with "Move" and "3D".
Now I dont know if they will be combined in games together in the near future.

However a user can control in a 3D enviroment like never before with "Move" giving real body interaction with the game. Now factor into that 3D vision as well.

Not only is the user experiencing 3D control via realy body interaction but the onscreen action is in 3D. If you have depth in control over body movement tracking and visual depth from a 3DTV thats a very powerful combination. To me its got the potential to be a much bigger possible change to gaming than HD ever was if not even one of the biggest changes to gaming ever? The buzz hasnt started yet as its not out yet.

This my man has the ability to become the closest thing to all that "Virtual Reality" stuff we seen in the 90's. Difference is without a massive big headset and with 90s level of graphics.

Yep, I'd agree that there is definitely potential, but my reservations would be:

1. How much can "3D" really enhance a game (any game, not just one with motion), in terms of gameplay?
2. How much can SONYs "Move" improve the genre of gaming that Nintendo pioneered?

Games that involve motion control live or die by their suitability to the medium. In SONYs favour then, is the fact that it is a powerful console with a standard controll first and foremost. Thus, developers can opt to use "Move" in addition to standard controls for part of the game, or, they develop a game that is totally geared towards using "Move". On the Wii, developers do not have this luxury. If you want a game on Wii, you have to adapt it to use the motion controller setup, and that can be very limiting. On the other hand, every Wii has the same controls so at least your target audience is there. Move could well end up as poorly supported as the PSEye in that regard, because attachment rates for such hardware are typically very low in relation to console sales.

Beyond the motion controls that SONY may well have the upper-hand on, the rest comes down to the games themselves. Can "3D" and "Move" totally revolutionise gaming as we know it? Sure, it will be a more immersive experience, but at the end of the day, bowling is bowling regardless of resolution. You are still stood in front of a screen holding a device that has no motion resistance. Many of us have a Nintendo Wii as a secondary console - I wonder how many of those have been used in the last week, month even. It's not the graphics that are flawed, it's often the games themselves, and it's only going to be broadly the same designers making such games for "Move".

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that "3D" alone will be great for a lot of people, and "Move" even more so in the early days due to its accessibility. A combination of the two then, certainly has potential to be greater than the sum of its parts. Can the games, which for me have stagnated ever since the release of PS2 (same games, same genres, same franchises etc.), live up to the task of unlocking such potential?

 

[Mr Latte]

Yep, I'd agree that there is definitely potential, but my reservations would be:

1. How much can "3D" really enhance a game (any game, not just one with motion), in terms of gameplay?
2. How much can SONYs "Move" improve the genre of gaming that Nintendo pioneered?

1. Research Nvidia Nvision forums of actual buyers/owners, that way you will get a proper opinion of PC owners that have been experiencing S3D in games for quite sometime. Its nerdy but has a growing following. The advent of 3DTV in the livingroom will bring it out of the bedroom and make it more mass appealing. 3D has many ways it can be applied its down to the imagination of the programmers how they implment 3D effects but as games work within 3D worlds then they can already offer the sense of depth 3D gives.

2. Move has many hardware advantages, I suggest you look up the tech demonstrations and game sites that will compare. It has superior hardware advantages over Natal and Wii.

Regards support from developers you quite clearly havnt looked into it.
Support is already confirmed by major games developers.

One thing is clear, never in the household have gamers had a situation where they potentially could control games in 3D motion, headtrack, facial recognition, voice recognition and have that combined with 3D vision as well.
With PS3 its coming...

Sony also seem to be the only ones to be able to combine these together in this hardware generation.
Now if they pull this off and 3D is good and Move is good it to me is like PS3 will get something that represents almost a new console upgrade.
Thats only if the games impress though.

 

[Lion-Face]

first thing first fat Ps3 have HDMI 1.2 !!!1080p in 3d at 60 fps won't happen ! it's imposibble on hdmi 1.2.. 720p at most in 30 fps.

All PS3's have HDMI 1.3 spec as minimum. It was one of the earliest consumer devices to have Spec 1.3 on board.

 

[TokyoDrift]

1. Research Nvidia Nvision forums of actual buyers/owners, that way you will get a proper opinion of PC owners that have been experiencing S3D in games for quite sometime. Its nerdy but has a growing following. The advent of 3DTV in the livingroom will bring it out of the bedroom and make it more mass appealing. 3D has many ways it can be applied its down to the imagination of the programmers how they implment 3D effects but as games work within 3D worlds then they can already offer the sense of depth 3D gives.

Will check that out, thanks.

2. Move has many hardware advantages, I suggest you look up the tech demonstrations and game sites that will compare. It has superior hardware advantages over Natal and Wii.

Regards support from developers you quite clearly havnt looked into it.
Support is already confirmed by major games developers.

Regarding Move, I'm well aware if its internals and how the tech differs from Wii etc., but as Wiimotion Plus has shown, more accuracy in the motion detection does not necessarily translate to a better gameplay experience. It's largely down to the developers, not just the tech.

Developers expressing their support is one thing. Actively supporting it with quality software during the early struggles is another.

One thing is clear, never in the household have gamers had a situation where they potentially could control games in 3D motion, headtrack, facial recognition, voice recognition and have that combined with 3D vision as well.
With PS3 its coming...

Sony also seem to be the only ones to be able to combine these together in this hardware generation.
Now if they pull this off and 3D is good and Move is good it to me is like PS3 will get something that represents almost a new console upgrade.
Thats only if the games impress though.

All very true, and like everything, it has to start somewhere. With PS3, everything is currently based on people buying a lot of new kit and accessories, which is fine - it's all optinal at the end of the day. However, I really don't see a revolution in gaming happening on this current generation of consoles. 3D has not been proven yet, PSEye has given developers head tracking with facial and voice recognition capabilities for quite some time now, and I don't see that being widely used or implemented well.

It's all one big jumbled bag of potential, and for me, the pace at which technology gets pushed out these days does not particularly inspire me. I hope it is all a success and that it does become mainstream, because then it will get refined and improved, bringing side-benefits as we've discussed already, such as better quality displays for standard 2D stuff.

 

[Mr Latte]

Developers expressing their support is one thing. Actively supporting it with quality software during the early struggles is another.

I could question how many of the wii games have been "quality software" or brillant? The novelty factor has worn off to a degree it seems for owners of the console and games using the wii dont seem to of really improved or advanced much, have they? Yet wii continues to sell well.

For developers looking at Move the attraction is, here is an affordable addon for a PS3 market that has a well established userbase in the millions. This affordable addon will offer wii like gameplay for little extra cost. Seems attractive to me for consumers and developers. With Natal it has to be one of the hot Christmas selling items.

With PS3, everything is currently based on people buying a lot of new kit and accessories, which is fine - it's all optinal at the end of the day. However, I really don't see a revolution in gaming happening on this current generation of consoles. 3D has not been proven yet, PSEye has given developers head tracking with facial and voice recognition capabilities for quite some time now, and I don't see that being widely used or implemented well.

PS3 and X360 required "new kit" in expensive HDTVs to be purchased. Racing games require steering wheels costing upto hundreds of pounds. Fanatec £400 wheel/pedals has almost sold out in little over 6 months from 10,000 units. Music games require guitars, drum kits costing additional money and games like Street Fighter have joysticks costing quite large sums of money. Yet all of these have been successful. All that amounts to proof that gamers will spend sometimes great amounts of money to enjoy their games or to experience games in new or better ways.

True PS3 Eye had offered very little in appealing games or developer support yet Eye Pet was awesome. I think on its own people have had "Eye Toy" gaming experiences from older PS2 and PS3 Eye didnt do anything much new so even developers hadnt much interest. The same could be said with Microsofts support for its cam.

You dont see a revolution in 3D as you dont seem to judge 3D fairly or look at the bigger picture. To say 3D has not been proven is untrue. It is being adopted by companies spending millions that see it as a potential market that is growing, not one that has peaked and is going to just end. It is a thing not everyone likes or can see but can you honestly doubt its growing popularity?

• Nvidia/ATI are promoting 3D PC gaming, Sony are introducing it, Nintendo in DS will support it. 3D hasnt even began to create the full buzz yet.
• Sky Sports and other major sporting networks including 3D movie channels are supporting it.
• 3D Cinema sales continue to do well at box office.
• Blu Ray will have approx 12-20 titles in 3D by years end.
• 3DTVs like Panasonics have already sold out in places.
• Samsung have various price points for 3DTV but their 3DTV Plasma both in 50" & 63" models is actually cheaper on sale NOW costing LESS than the price of last years 2D models from Sony/Panasonic/Sharp and LG.

Yet constantly on these forums people are attacking 3D and saying it wont take off, doubting its chances of success.
Fair dues but thats not what I see happening....


If Sonys 3DTV games including GT5 offer a 3D experience close to that of the cinema and it enchances the fun of the games then I can only see it helping to encourage 3DTV sales even further.

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

[*]Samsung have various price points for 3DTV but their 3DTV Plasma both in 50" & 63" models is actually cheaper on sale NOW costing LESS than the price of last years 2D models from Sony/Panasonic/Sharp and LG.
[/LIST]

I must admit to being confused about the above.

During last year you could pick up a 50" Samsung plasma for around £599 from stores such as Argos, Tescos. Now the cheapest Samsung 3DTV LED that I can find is £1999.99. The 55" Samsung plasma 3D TV is £2999.99.

Now I apologise if im wrong because it might be that im looking at the wrong websites.

 

[ICEMAN_ZIDANE]

So you say all of your PS3 settings are on low, then does that mean your not allowed to talk about HDTVs or HD gamming?
Do people have to own or intend to own a 3DTV to have an opinion?

If anything 1080p in GT5 is little benifit over 720p and is overrated as their is so little difference in it regards the game.
At least 3D might offer something new/different in the game.

read my post a 2nd time
i said i have a Sony Bravia FHD 200herts tv too ,sometimes i play my games on this tv!
between hd and fhd is a big diference (for me ) ,i saw the trailers in hd and fhd ...

i think from 1000 people 10 will have a 3d tv ,stop talking about that ...

 

[TokyoDrift]

I could question how many of the wii games have been "quality software" or brillant? The novelty factor has worn off to a degree it seems for owners of the console and games using the wii dont seem to of really improved or advanced much, have they? Yet wii continues to sell well.

See, you are at it again. Did I say that many of the Wii games have been "quality software" or brilliant? No.

You said that lots of developers have expressed their support for Move, and I said that just because a developer supports something, it does not guarantee its success. It's all down to the quality of the games those developers create.

True, for most older gamers, the novelty of motion control has worn off, so that doesn't really bode well for Move, does it? Sure the Wii is selling well still - it's a cheap, simple console that has a huge library of games that generally appeal to younger people.

For developers looking at Move the attraction is, here is an affordable addon for a PS3 market that has a well established userbase in the millions. This affordable addon will offer wii like gameplay for little extra cost. Seems attractive to me for consumers and developers. With Natal it has to be one of the hot Christmas selling items.

Right, and therein lies their hurdle - convincing people that it's better than Wii-like gameplay. Based on what I've seen and heard so far, apart from better graphics, it isn't much different at all, and hence likely to lose the novelty factor in the same way.

PS3 and X360 required "new kit" in expensive HDTVs to be purchased.

No they did not. I know several people who play their Xbox 360 and PS3 on old widescreen SDTVs.

Racing games require steering wheels costing upto hundreds of pounds.

No they do not. Millions of people play their racing games perfectly well using a game pad.

Fanatec £400 wheel/pedals has almost sold out in little over 6 months from 10,000 units.

Right, and you think those 10,000 people represent the causal mainstream gamer/racer? The wheels and pedals are expensive because they don't make or sell that many of them. They don't sell that many of them because there isn't much of a market for high-end wheels (in relation to the total market potential).

Music games require guitars, drum kits costing additional money and games like Street Fighter have joysticks costing quite large sums of money. Yet all of these have been successful. All that amounts to proof that gamers will spend sometimes great amounts of money to enjoy their games or to experience games in new or better ways.

Yep, guitar games have been extremely successful - largely because of the broad mass appeal of the games that they power. Had the game concept not taken off, we would not have the band kits that we see today. Proof then, that peripherals only sell well when the hardware is affordable and the games are deserving of that investment, which is kinda' what I've been saying.

True PS3 Eye had offered very little in appealing games or developer support yet Eye Pet was awesome. I think on its own people have had "Eye Toy" gaming experiences from older PS2 and PS3 Eye didnt do anything much new so even developers hadnt much interest. The same could be said with Microsofts support for its cam.

Again, I agree, anything camera-based has not particularly flourished when it comes to games support, but in fairess to Microsoft, their camera has more to do with the superior online and social aspects of the console.

Samsung have various price points for 3DTV but their 3DTV Plasma both in 50" & 63" models is actually cheaper on sale NOW costing LESS than the price of last years 2D models from Sony/Panasonic/Sharp and LG.

1. Time + technological advancement usually = more tech for less cash. Nothing new there.
2. Comparing across brands is pointless. At the end of the day, Samsung's 3DTVs are priced higher than their standard HDTVs from last year. If 2010 Samsung 3DTVs are cheaper than 2009 SONY HDTVs, that purely because Samsung is the cheaper brand in the first place. What relevance does that have to the quality or success of 3D?

Yet constantly on these forums people are attacking 3D and saying it wont take off, doubting its chances of success.

Let me ask you a question you asked me recently. Does it matter like REALLY, is it so important?

 

[Mr Latte]

read my post a 2nd time
i said i have a Sony Bravia FHD 200herts tv too ,sometimes i play my games on this tv!
between hd and fhd is a big diference (for me ) ,i saw the trailers in hd and fhd ...

i think from 1000 people 10 will have a 3d tv ,stop talking about that ...

Ive said to others you are more than welcome to create a thread and fill it with photographs of GT5P in 1080p mode and compare it to the 720p mode. The difference is not massive but please prove me wrong if you wish...

Ive not argued that with movies or indeed TV that 1080 shows more of a benifit.

TD I dont mind discussing things, I offered my opinion to points you raised, you dont have to agree with them.
Im not prepared to contuinuely make posts between us, points of arguments.

If you or others think 3D is a FAD or it will fail, fine I disagree and for reasons made above....