Widescreen Gaming Forum

1) As others have responded, I agree that ~135 deg is what you should be shooting for. You definitely have to take current game support in to the equation and already 135 deg turns off a lot of people (not me!) because of stretching on the side monitors. Going with a larger FOV is only going to make this worse so I agree that 135 is the "sweet spot"

2) Yes 3D is important. Again, game support is also a concern here as many games have broken 3D support. That being said it is definitely an excellent feature and the ability to use 3D or not curtails any disadvantage. The main reason for surround gaming is immersion and 3D only adds to that in my opinion. We're also getting to a point where GFX cards will be able to run it with decent framerates at the resolutions you're spec'ing this display for.

3) Here I'm going to say ~6' left to right. That's my current setup and around 2-3' from screen to viewer position is what I use and don't have any issues straining to see. On unit depth I should think you'd want to aim for "as narrow as possible" and make what ever concessions are needed to display correctly.

4) This is tough to answer. I personally have around $750 in my 3 displays, $150 in the stand, so competitively that would put you at around $900-1000 which in all honesty doesn't sound feasible. Depending on fit-and-finish though you could double that and personally I'd be comfortable with it however 6mm plywood doesn't sound like something that appeals to me. 1/8" aluminum does though, or a laminate-covered 6mm plywood with a few different finishes available. As far as making the "plans available" for do-in-yourselfers, 6mm plywood sounds great however as a finished product I'd be aiming a little higher than that and charging for it. It IS worth something to the customer to have a quality look/quality built product.

5) Self assemble. Packaging and other factors would make ready-to-rock prohibitive and for anyone purchasing such a display, they should be able to follow well thought out directions for assembly.

6) Personally, the less you have to move such a setup the better. If the boxes and plastic foam shipping pads that come with the product are well-made and usable over and over again (read --> NOT STYROFOAM) then you can move the setup in its original packaging without much thought. Personally a folding setup would compromise the rigidity of the setup.

7) True to life. To reiterate, the competitive advantage is there anyway and immersion is what we're seeking (at least me) Image quality and response time are key here as well.

8) This would be a nice feature I suppose however for me, I would have my setup a certain way and once its set up I don't want to mess with it. If I need a single projector for watching movies or something else that would be a separate purchase. I agree with other posters that on either a 3x1 or 3x2 setup it would be nice to be able to turn off certain displays and give the set up some flexibility in that regard.

_________________
i7 sandy 4.4ghz with a snorkel
1080gtx
8gb RAM
Gigabyte P67-UD7 rev. B3
OS -Samsung 840pro 256GB ssd
Games -Samsung 840pro 500GB ssd
Pagefile -crucial 60GB ssd
Storage -2x 4TB WD
PWS -Seasonic Prime 1k Titanium

When you think about it, all flat monitor based systems are inclined to do this, i.e represent a wider angle on screen than in the physical field of vision (feel free to disagree, share your setups dimensions!). We are so used to it that we don't think about it. This provides a gaming advantage, dragging the peripheral vision into the primary field of view. Interestingly, the peripheral vision is wired to be more responsive to movement (I've heard!), to give us time to react when a predator approaches from the side, for example your boss when you're busy reading reviews on WSGF...

To offer what I'd describe as true geometry of vision the screen should show things life-sized, and at the same angle to the eye as they would be in reality. That's always been a goal of Infinitx, though it may be misguided. The theory is/was that the brain doesn't have to work so hard to create the immersion. Call it removing the brain lag

This is the human field of vision if you perceive it as a hemisphere rolled flat out, just like a world map.


If we plot the area of field of vision covered by the 135 degree arc screen, you get something like this.


And the initial goal of infinitx from a mathematicians point of view..


Worth noting that here we're talking the field of vision without moving the head, which adds another 90 degrees even when sitting.
(Here's some better illustrations http://www.dsource.in/course/display-design/module-2/vision/vision.html)

As you all know (and I'm slowly being persuaded) we don't need total coverage of the human field of view to feel immersed. 135 degrees is clearly leading the polls so far.



Here we start getting into the Economics of Scale. If we order 300 projectors (that's 100 infinitx screens), we can generally negotiate a better price. If we order 1000 projectors then we can begin to define their specification, and have something custom built. Some minor alterations (like removing tv tuners, analog inputs, card readers etc.) might not require such volumes. If you've ever bought a projector from ProjectorDesign, you'll know that you can get just about any projector specification you might require, but make sure you're sitting down before you ask the price. We are relying on using hardware designed for the mass market for the foreseeable future, and chose a partner who is willing to hear our suggestions for future versions.


First I should mention, in the current design there is no plywood visible when the screen is fully assembled, only lush black and clear acrylic from the front, and a flame retardant stretch fabric shroud on the back. Why fabric? It facilitates heat dissipation, dampens sound and allows air to pass through the cabinet, while filtering out dust.


hi Haldi Crowdsourcing is what we're doing right now, i.e. developing the device together with the community it's designed to serve.
Crowdfunding is definitely an option later, and would certainly help to reach critical mass.

Please keep your comments and suggestions coming. Already I feel we're focusing in on the ultimate gaming screen

Sounds like a great solution Thanks for elaborating on it.

_________________
i7 sandy 4.4ghz with a snorkel
1080gtx
8gb RAM
Gigabyte P67-UD7 rev. B3
OS -Samsung 840pro 256GB ssd
Games -Samsung 840pro 500GB ssd
Pagefile -crucial 60GB ssd
Storage -2x 4TB WD
PWS -Seasonic Prime 1k Titanium

Whoa, did not know the marginal cost going from WXGA to full HD for LED projectors was so steep. LED projectors are a fairly new technology, right? In that case, it may be advisable to wait a few years for LEDs to become competitive with conventional lamps. The reason I say this is because as LuckyNoS7evin alluded to earlier, 1080p is really the standard du jour; I doubt there are many in this community who would be willing to sacrifice more than half of their current pixel count, even for a bezel-less 3x2L 3D display. This is especially true considering that for about the same price as single full HD LED projector you can build a setup like this. I still think this project holds a great deal of promise, however; it offers the best of most everything one could want in a display. When I build my first rig several years from now, Stromberg Industries will definitely be on my radar.

ahhhhh thx for your detailed explanations.

So this would be the Hardware FoV if there is no picture shown on the Screen! But what about Games ? They need to show the FoV thats supposed to fit! YOu might have heard about the console games on a 50"TV with 60° FoV which seems the same as a 23" PC Monitor with 90° FoV because you're much nearer to the PC Monitor. But some Games are bad ported to the computer and end up with a FoV of 60°! Same goes for Far Cry 3. In Eyefinity we had some Problems with the FoV stuck on 110°.
So if you stick a 110° FoV image on this (maybe) 135° Wall it would look totally off ?

The 2x3 180° Wall sure would be awesome for Flight Simulation, for people who have over 250 buttons to press and joysticks to handle! For highly optimized Systems/Games/Simulators. But for the average gamer i'd say the Occulus Rift provides better immersion (mainly because it's around 300$).

So the FoV also depends on how far away you are from the Monitor! on a 180° Setup i assume you're in the middle and the distances is set by the radius.
But how does that work for a 135°C You can sit nearer or further. To far away and the FoV decreases and the picture gets smaler? To near and the FoV is to big and the Items on the screen become to big ?




About the 720p/1080p discussion i think you're gonna have a hard time explaining why 720p Projectors are better suited than 1080p. Sure the price does a lot on that. But people will say "what ? only 720p? No way!" If you offer a 1080p version they will say "what? so expensive? no way! i'd rather buy 720p projectors"
I don't think that many people will be willing to spend so much cash for 1080p Projectors. but just having it will smooth the community and decrease bad advertisement like "this system would be absolutly perfect if it only had 1080p"
So the question would be. Is it worth developing a 1080p version even tough rarely nobody is willing to buy it due to the huge cost?



And sorry, i mixed up Crowdfunding with Crowdsourcing. It was late night/morning... to much crows!
But Kickstarter is definitly a good way. Not because of the funding, but because of the advertisement you get.
You can reach all the fans of tech gadget who don't visit Gaming Blogs every day but are willing to spend their money.

_________________
We gonna send it to outa space!

Those are very valid points Haldi, and surely sum up well the viewpoint of many gamers.

If the Rift proves one thing though, it's that resolution isn't the be all and end all of immersion. After all, in it's current incarnation (the good lord only knows when a consumer model will emerge) is a mere 640 x 720 pixels per eye. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpV7qq1vyd4.

I have a few other misgivings about displays that render the user blind to the real world. The gamers I've observed (mainly my son Jack) play for hours, if not days on end and have chat windows open, they eat, drink, smoke (you just dare Jack!) and answer the phone while gaming. Not easy with a monitor strapped to your face. (maybe I'm just a little jealous of their development budget )

In reality (and virtual reality) resolution is a number. Numbers are the easiest things to compare, but they don't tell the whole story. They don't describe the experience. Otherwise the Rift, and the Nintendo Wii for that matter, would have been dead in the water.

A 3x2 Infinitx would provide you with a resolution equivalent to a 100" 4K TV, both curved, and at a fraction of the cost.
Take for example the Samsung's 85". A snip at $39,999! http://mashable.com/2013/03/22/samsung-4k-tv-s9-price/

To infinitx, and beyond!

Hey there. I'm a 5x1P user with screens that wrap around to an approximate 100 degree arc. in terms of coverage, that's about proper. If you're going for immersion, I suggest 170ish. Maybe 165. But, I also warn of this sort of setup. Games are NOT designed to fit onto curved displays and the camera in the software would have to be warped specifically to fit it. The 3D element of games have always, as far as I've seen, assumed a flat display that can grow off until infinity. This limits you to 180 degrees inherently, but that number is not achievable and you'll have to follow a diminishing return law when considering the vertical as it moves towards the edges. This comes out looking roughly eye shaped with sharp corners near the left and right edges, in which your view is largest in the central portion. This is how regular screens work.

Set up 5 TV's in a row, match the FOV of the game to your FOV of the screens (usually by sitting the appropriate distance), and you will discover that there is nothing being warped from that perspective. This, again, is how the game expects things to be. With curvature comes warping, which reducing the immersive aspect of this system. And I get the feeling that immersion is the whole point of it. What they call "fisheye" only happens when the screens are turned inwards to wrap around the player, and it's a well known phenomenon. A curved screen would only exaggerate this.

So, onto the questions:
1.What is the optimal arc for a wide screen gaming display? (Should there be different options?
180 degrees as a maximum, 90 as a minimum.

2. Is stereoscopic 3D important to gamers? (Does anyone actually use it?)
Yes, but only gamers interested in immersion. FPS gamers do not tend to like stereoscopy. Racing enthusiasts are hit or miss with the technology, as it can give you a better feel of the speed of the car. But stereoscopy doesn't work properly with curved screens, it's designed for flat screens. Check it out yourself if you don't believe me, but it's going to mess itself up. Millions of dollars have been spent in getting the math right for all of the flat displays out there, not the tiny tiny handful of curved displays.

3. What’s the maximum acceptable physical size for such a display?
In this crowd, surely this number doesn't exist. Let's just say that it has to be small enough to fit into a small country.

4. What should it cost? There are several places where it’s possible to compromise on materials and components.
Projector costs included? 1500-2000. The screen setup by itself? 500.

5. Which weighs heavier, the price or the output image quality?
Image quality. Seamless transition between projectors is important as is having everything in focus. If projectors hit a screen at an angle (and with your curved screens, most lenses are designed to focus from a flat plane, not a curve, so you might want to get new optics for this specifically) then parts of the image will be more in focus than others, and this could be a bit jarring up close.

6. Should the screen be self assembly (think IKEA) of ready to rock?
Both options would be good. You could design it for self assembly but sell a fully assembled version that would make up for the cost of shipping and labor, plus a little extra profit. Having a self-assembly option from the get-go gives you both options for selling. Some people would rather save money, some people would rather not have a hassle. I'd rather save money. My whole computer, with 5 screens, cost less than 2 thousand. It took a lot of work getting it together, but that money I saved on service could be put into getting better stuff. If you have a larger version available that's the same cost as the pre-assembled lower model, I'd definitely get the larger one.

7. Is portability a factor that should be considered? Should you be able to pack the screen down either for travel or storage?
I imagine it would be very difficult to design this into what your'e looking for. I suggest holding off on this idea and designing the first version without this in mind to save on costs for both yourself and the consumer. The majority of users won't be interested in this, and the handful of users that would be are also probably used to and willing to deal with complex setups/teardowns. Again, I have 5 monitors. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to frustrating teardowns.

8. What’s most important, a display which is “true to life” (geometrically) or one that gives you the biggest advantage over your competitors?
True to life, easily. What's the point in covering the majority of your vision if you aren't trying to trick your brain that it's actually in the game? Keep the geometry right and leave the advantages with the 240Hz LCD displays. I don't need that stuff to play Skyrim or race between trees in Dirt. Keep that stuff pretty.

9. Should the projectors be removable for use interdependently or in other setups?
An easy release system might have other benefits as well. Not to mention that it could make the setup more modular. If you have it designed in such a way that you could choose between 1 and 6 projectors in whatever configuration you'd like, that would suit the largest number of people. If you design an interlocking system for them, I suggest designing a method to stack them vertically for those people that would like to run 6 of them in a 3x2L setup.

_________________
(imagination not allowed in signature)

Thanks Zencyde for a most informative and in-depth analysis.

I'm aware the one-point perspective devised in the Renaissance and still used almost ubiquitously in 3D engines is inadequate for wide flat screens, when considering the FOV's and viewing distances desirable for gaming. I know you have a very firm grasp of this scenario.
So you have elected to arrange your monitors in a 100 degree arc, in the knowledge that a straight line is the only appropriate position for standard perspective 3D rendering, ignoring stretching in favor of a more encompassing display. Would that be fair? So overall feel triumphs over geometric accuracy, and conversely geometric accuracy doesn’t necessarily give the best feel.

I think we need to rename what’s being called the “fisheye effect” to describe objects stretching towards the edges of the screen. It’s actually the lack of fisheye effect that is being referred to. In a fisheye, objects become smaller towards the edges.

Here’s an example using a 3D fisheye simulation in live 3D. The cars are in a straight line in front of the camera.


Having this type of lens within a game engine opens up for a type of immersion rarely seen outside of expensive custom built/programmed simulators.

The brain is apparently willing to chip in and interpret our primitive attempts at visualization into a virtual world that makes sense, not because it's accurate, but because it's consistent. The geometry/screen/eye/mind pipeline is indeed an interesting one, and probably more straightforward than it sounds. The screen introduces the errors and the mind accepts or rejects the tolerances. We can tune many titles for FOV, but as you rightly point out, apart from a handful of titles (iRacing, any others?), a flat viewing surface is universally assumed, and a barrier for experiencing 3D that wasn’t specifically designed for a wrap around screen.


Side screen as rendered on the infiinitx D 135 degree

I don’t foresee the issue being exaggerated by a single curved display contra an array of monitors, unless of course the physical arc is far greater.

So there’s a tug-of-war going on between immersion and existing gaming titles. That challenges one of the main aims of the project, that is...



Any ideas? I’ve seen hacks done like this one...
http://strlen.com/gfxengine/fisheyequake/

If true immersion, i.e. seeing things beside you that ere beside you in game environment requires mods, it's maybe a more acceptable compromise than making the curved screen flat!

Hello,
I find your proposed project quite interesting. I would say that I would be a potential customer for such a product and as such would like to submit my views on your questions. I have a custom sim-racing rig in which I recently upgraded the display from a triple-screen to a more capable triple-screen. The previous display used three 19” Viewsonics for a 3840 x 1024 display driven using a Matrox Triple Head2Go. The new display uses three BenQ 24” (XL2420T), generating a 5760 x 1080 display, driven by two AMD 7970 cards in Crossfire. Before going for the upgrade I spent quite a bit of time looking at the options available for a projection system and the available components, such as the projectors, screens, blending software, etc. Clearly, I concluded that staying with triple monitors was the best choice for me at this time. A dedicated effort, such as yours has the potential to be, might change the results of my calculation. You can bring resources to bear, and take on such challenges as folded optics that I was unwilling or unable to address. Below please see my answers to your questions and a few thoughts on some additional issues.

What is the optimal arc for a wide screen gaming display? (Should there be different options?)

180 degrees is probably overkill. There is likely (to my mind, anyway) a sweet spot somewhere in the 135-150 degree range. I find that the side monitors don't just provide immersion and a sense of speed. Overtaking situations show their real value as I can see the car beside me well enough to better judge when (and whether) to turn in. Much less accidental contact is the result and better racing. The aspect ratio of the three monitors (48:9), coupled with my FOV (26 degrees vertical in rFactor2), means that many things I might like to see are out of the field of view. I use TrackIR to overcome this, and it also helps in looking to the sides.


Is stereoscopic 3D important to gamers? (Does anyone actually use it?)

I haven't tried it yet. My monitors are 120 Hz which I got not only for their 3D capability but also for the faster (hopefully smoother) frame rate for 2D. Some sim-racing 3D users have reported that 3D is not just eye-candy but helpful in judging distances to opponents, curbing, etc. For now, I am struggling to get frame rates up to 120 fps so 3D may have to wait for the next generation of video cards. I remain hopeful and think this would be good to have but maybe not absolutely essential.

What’s the maximum acceptable physical size for such a display?

Because I have a dedicated rig I naturally think of what fits well with that. At a rough estimate, maybe 5' wide by 2' high by 3' deep. These would be the unit bounds, not the display size.

What should it cost? There are several places where it’s possible to compromise on materials and components. Which weighs heavier, the price or the output image quality?

Image quality. For sure, I understand the tradeoff. Now, I realize that image quality is a function of more than just pixel count but it surely starts with that. I am unwilling to accept an array of 3 x 1280 x 800 projectors that result in a 3840 x 800 display. It is surely possible to use five projectors (in portrait) to achieve 4000 x 1280 (which starts to have sufficient resolution AND helps on the aspect ratio issue), but this may blow the budget. When I was contemplating my choices, I tended to focus on the available cost-effective LED-driven units (e.g., the QUMI). 1920 x 1080 projectors were either projector-lamp driven (which brings in heat, power, and size issues) or were way, way out of my budget possibilities. Three powerful monitors and a decent monitor stand will quickly get you into the $1500 range (if not more). I would hope that you could get the price in a range of $2K - $3K.


Should the screen be self assembly (think IKEA) of ready to rock?

Turning wrenches is fine with me, especially if it saves some dough.


Is portability a factor that should be considered? Should you be able to pack the screen down either for travel or storage?

Not a big driver for me. Could be a part of the DIY aspect of the previous question but I wouldn't like to see a lot of cost go into supporting this feature. See me discussion of reliability below.


What’s most important, a display which is “true to life” (geometrically) or one that gives you the biggest advantage over your competitors?

I don't understand this question.


Should the projectors be removable for use interdependently or in other setups?


Not important to me.




Additonal thoughts.

I am already thinking of my next sim-rig project. I would like to add motion. To do this properly one should make the display part of the platform that is moveable. This leads me to think of the following:

Weight. Keep it as light as possible. Less mass for the actuators to drive is all to the good.

Sturdiness and resistance to shock, vibe, etc.

Mounting. The unit should be easily mounted to standard or custom monitor mounts. Maybe VESA, I have not given this a lot of thought, but maybe you have.

Reliability. The unit should of course be highly reliable for its intended environment.

Power. It would be nice to keep the power budget down for all of the obvious reasons.


I suspect that my needs are somewhat outside the target clientele you are considering. Still, I think there are a not inconsiderable number of sim fanatics like myself. Thank you for listening to my long-winded thoughts.

Dave Bradley

Hi David, thanks very much for your thoughts.
As a simulator builder you are definitely within the target audience, and a very welcome addition to the discussion.

This particular size of screen is thought of to fit on a desktop, or as a close proximity display on an car, or cockpit simulator.
I should probably add some illustrations to emphasize this.
The LED projectors appear to be very robust. At least, we are constantly moving them without switching them off, with no issues. and the whole set-up is comparatively light.
Whether I would recommend strapping one to a fast moving force feedback chair, I'm not sure. I would probably use a larger static screen, with a moving cockpit within.

The "true to life" question is about evaluating the users requirement for a display that attempts to mimic reality, in relation to many other factors.
If "true to life" were a top priority, it dictates many other parameters. What we're trying to achieve is the best balance between all the factors that affect the final design, and ultimately the price point.

Cheers!