Cliffs of Dover in 3D [Archive] - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Shtopor

03-09-2011, 03:50 PM

Hi, guys, first post, long time lurker here. I was playing original IL2 and
up untill 2005 - 06 was friquent online flyer with 609 squad. Then things changed. Vosxod and Bogun are two guys whom I mostly enjoyed flying together. Hopefull they are still flying and having fun . Anyway, back to bussiness. Recently I bought 3D projector Acer H5360 and literally put together new PC:
Sandy Bridge 2500K (3.3Ghz clocked at 4.4)
Asus Motherboard P67 Pro
ATI HD 6950 (planning to softmode it to 6970)
8Gb RAM
But what I was really enjoyng is my new DLP 3D projector on 106" high Gain Screen (HP screen reflects more light then regular scren to offset loss of light due to glasses). Avatar in 3D looks like in IMAX, just stunning. This projector can be had for (get ready) 500 bucks when on sale at Amazon, I bought it at Future Shop in Toronto for that measly price. It works with DLP link ultraclear glasses(basically projector when in 120Hz mode inserts flashes which DLP link glasses understand and flip between left and right)that I bought 3 pices for 225 bucks from US site.
Projector is only capable to run at 1280X720P mode. But that is 1 million pixels for each eye per frame.PS3 games can be played too if you buy additional adapter(199 $). I have Track IR3 (I know its old but still works), Thrustmaster pedals
and no jostick yet (don't know what can be better then Microsoft's MS2 joystick?). Also I have G25 driving wheel for drive sims.
BUT, nothing, and I really mean it, can compare with how things look in 3D it
just another world. Chaps I do recommend it.
You can read about it at AVS forum here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1193088
One more thing, I watched Avatar 3D on 65" Panasonic TV (price tag 4000 $),
and feeling is that you are looking into aquarium (even at 65" it is too small for good 3D. This 500 bucks Projector wipes the floor with any 3d TV, for 2 major reasons:
1. Size DOES matter when you watch 3D
2. There is no crosstalk like with LCD 3D TV and less with plasma 3D TVs(plasma pixels are faster go from dark to color and back), but nothing beats
DLP as there is just mirrors )
I definitely recommend instead of 1920X1080 flat for both yes
go 1280X720 for each eye, which pixelwise is the same 2 million pixels for videocard to process, but outcome is perception of depth, which in flight sims
could help many to literally "feel" how far that bad guys is and what deflection is needed to hit him.
I hope this info will help those who want to see Cliiffs of Dover in gorgeous
3D.

Thee_oddball

03-09-2011, 04:25 PM

you do relize that if we were all in a bar and you were telling us this we would be pummling you in a jealous rage! :-P

cheers and enjoy your new rig :)

Prefontaine

03-09-2011, 04:58 PM

uhh...advertise much?

Shtopor

03-09-2011, 05:21 PM

Guys I am not bragging or trying to sell you anything, all I did was to tell you that QUALITY 3D is AFFORDABLE.
here is my expencess:
Acer projector - 500
screen - 250
projector mount (ceiling in my case) - 50
iz3d driver - 20 (for ATI card owners)
glasses - 60 (+ shipping)

PowerDVD10 software player (for Blu-rays and mp4, H264 and ....)

Here I am talking real 3D not those tiny 24" monitors (in 3d they look like 15inchers). It is just mind boggling how you can get IMAX qulity 3D at your home. Check youtube Acer h5360 and see for yourself what it looks like, you will be pleasantly surprised. I believe flghtsims and driving sims are absoulte winners in the case of 3D as that DOES help to win.

Shtopor

03-09-2011, 05:25 PM

Here is a youtube video of ACer in 2D 120Hz refresh rate:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+Acer+h5360&docid=412238939035&mid=0F2DC1DD1566E89476790F2DC1DD1566E8947679&FORM=VIRE1#

Gribbers

03-09-2011, 05:29 PM

You HAVE to upload video of that set up!!!

Shtopor

03-09-2011, 05:43 PM

It is not me on that video, but I have a similar setup. I just don't understand when people buy 3d TVs for 2 grand (50") of inferior qulity, when you can get much better stuff for peanuts and enjoy it. I have 2 monitors, 24" and 28" and believe me this Acer
is just handsdown a winner. Besides you can play games in 2D in 120Hz mode which means you can see all 120 fps (of course if your videocard can pump that many FPSs).

Strike

03-09-2011, 06:31 PM

Not trying to burst any bubbles here, but have you actually tried 3D over prolonged time?

Even if you can adjust the "depth" or "focus" of the 3D experience, it's a complete headache! The human brain is not designed to view things in this "created 3D" that we experience on our monitors/screens. I personally thought it was cool, like a gadget is cool. But I think 3D is a lot of "hype".

It seems everyone I know who has tried 3D, but doesn't actually own it can't stand it. Of course the guys who bought it defend it as if it were their own child, but those who were thinking about getting it or wondering what it's like have the same complaints:

-You feel fatigued after less than an hour (much like the normal fatigue of 12 hours straight looking at a normal screen without 3D)
-Eye irritation
-Unnatural
-Not fully supported by all games and various graphic effects (cause certain graphics like heat blurs etc to appear 2D, which makes it double)

Most "experts" or scientists already seem to be labeling 3D as "not the future" for tv/games.

Just wanted to add some balance to the pro/con and also to warn you. But remember; it's just MY personal (and friends) opinion.

It may be for you though, and even though I thought it was cool, it just wasn't "practical" to me.

Shtopor

03-09-2011, 09:10 PM

I don't know what fatique you are talking about. I watched quite a few movies and never did I feel any fatique. Btw, most "experts" wear prescription glasses and yes 2 glasses on is a bit too much I guess. I do understand that everything new takes time to
accept, but keep in mind nature has made us see thing in stereo for a reason, and that is creatures who see in stereo and color have an advantage of survival higher then otherwise. Anyway to each his own. I do undertand that many do feel discomfort and apparently thouse are the ones who doesn't accept 3D. Luckily I am not one of them.
Each milage varies though.

julian265

03-09-2011, 09:45 PM

Btw, most "experts" wear prescription glasses <snip>

Off topic
:lol: and lab coats too according to the stereotype!

On topic
I've seen about 4 hours of 3d in total, one movie at imax, one at home (just the red/cyan method), and didn't feel uncomfortable at all. That said, the clarity has to be better for a flight sim, and I'm not sure how I'd go with a 4+ hour session.

Les

03-09-2011, 09:51 PM

This is interesting, I've been waiting for years for decent projectors to become affordable. I'm not fussed about the 3D features, but I would like to be able to project big enough to fill at least half a wall with a good sharp high resolution image.

In the past I've tested out IL-2 projected onto a wall and it was great, but the resolution wasn't there, and come to think of it, I'm not sure the in-game textures would have held up to being shown that big even if the projector didn't blur them. The way I had it set up, the widest in-cockpit view was life-size 1:1 scale and I was sitting as far away from the instrument panel as you would be in real life. It was the first time I realized how huge the clouds are in IL-2, flying through them and looking at them in external view like that.

The only other thing is that projectors are notorious for the short life-span of their ridiculously expensive globes. Any info on price and life-expectancy of the globes your projector uses?

Koyan

03-09-2011, 10:18 PM

Here is a youtube video of ACer in 2D 120Hz refresh rate:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+Acer+h5360&docid=412238939035&mid=0F2DC1DD1566E89476790F2DC1DD1566E8947679&FORM=VIRE1#

Now all he needs is a chair to keep him and the steering wheel in sinc with the car (wobbling) :grin:

Shtopor

03-10-2011, 04:17 AM

Bulb life expectancy is 3000 hours in full mode and 4000 hours in eco mode ( a bit dimmer
but good for 2d). Bulb cost 80 - 100 bucks.

Thee_oddball

03-10-2011, 04:33 AM

Les

03-10-2011, 05:21 PM

or if you want to have some real fun...build your own :)
http://lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15796

lol, that's what I did.

Thanks for the info Shtopor. Depending on your usage, the price of those globes over time could be quite reasonable.

Thee_oddball

03-11-2011, 05:00 AM

lol, that's what I did.

Thanks for the info Shtopor. Depending on your usage, the price of those globes over time could be quite reasonable.

you built a 100 inch wide 1080P hidef projector? do you have pics? and why do you not use it anymore?

RaM85

03-11-2011, 09:48 AM

[QUOTE=Shtopor;232589]Guys I am not bragging or trying to sell you anything, all I did was to tell you that QUALITY 3D is AFFORDABLE.
here is my expencess:
Acer projector - 500
screen - 250
projector mount (ceiling in my case) - 50
iz3d driver - 20 (for ATI card owners)
glasses - 60 (+ shipping)

Very interesting. How is it to play with 3d glasses and track ir altogether?
I thought that the inevitable rotation of the head would let the glasses be less effective or give you distorted images (unless you set your track ir on super sensitive mode)..

Les

03-11-2011, 06:37 PM

you built a 100 inch wide 1080P hidef projector? do you have pics? and why do you not use it anymore?

I built one very similar to the one in the thread you linked to, at about the same time that Lumenlab scene was peaking. Same basic lenses, same resolution 15" LCD (Benq brand though), same basic wooden construction, with a slightly different globe and inner workings.

I just made it to see if I could, and it worked out quite well, as good as any of the others I'd seen there. But I don't watch TV or DVD's much (don't even have a TV), and I found the resolution lacking (for gaming) when projecting the image as large as I wanted it. The sense of scale was amazing, but the in-game objects were just a bit too blurry at that resolution when combined with how close I wanted to sit to the screen.

In practical terms too, ending up with such a large box of a projector, it has to become a major feature of the space you put it in, and I was never really comfortable with that, preferring something smaller and more portable. That would be the main reason I don't use it much, it's just a hassle moving it around and I didn't want to leave it set up in one place.

The kind of projectors Shtopor linked to were worth over a couple of grand (for even more basic versions) back when I made mine so it's good to see they've become (arguably) affordable. However, thinking about it further, I still think I'd prefer something with a higher resolution. But only because I want to project an image about eight feet high and sit about three feet from the screen and get totally immersed in it.

Like with mine, when projecting smaller or sitting further away, the resolution these things put out definitely makes them worth considering. And indeed, the 3D probably is unbelievable. It'd have to be, considering how amazing it is projecting a regular image that big.

Anyway, something to think about perhaps.

Edit - Just to clarify, the DIY projector you linked to, and the one I built, used an LCD screen with a resolution of 1024x768, so, no that's not 1080p. The OP's projector has a slightly larger 1280x720p resolution, but that isn't 1080p either. And while it's my opinion you'd still have to get into 2K plus territory resolutions to get the 'up-close effect' I was looking for, for 'normal' use, 1280x720p would be fine, I think. And at those prices, it would actually be cheaper than going DIY now, if you could even find the bits and pieces to do it yourself.

swiss

03-11-2011, 06:44 PM

Guys I am not bragging or trying to sell you anything, all I did was to tell you that QUALITY 3D is AFFORDABLE.
here is my expencess:
Acer projector - 500
screen - 250
projector mount (ceiling in my case) - 50
iz3d driver - 20 (for ATI card owners)
glasses - 60 (+ shipping)

Very interesting. How is it to play with 3d glasses and track ir altogether?
I thought that the inevitable rotation of the head would let the glasses be less effective or give you distorted images (unless you set your track ir on super sensitive mode)..

Why would anyone still buy a 3d screen which needs glasses?
The no glasses technology is just around the corner, I'll rather wait another 12 months or so.

Shtopor

03-11-2011, 08:32 PM

So far I didn't use it with tracIr (have to choose flightstick which is a bitch,
as I would love to buy MSFFB 2 and they don't make them anymore).
Regarding glassless 3D, it might come in a year or 10 but I can enjoy all 3D movies/gaming and 2D for that matter today at a price of a good 24 inch monitor.

Les

03-11-2011, 08:34 PM

Why would anyone still buy a 3d screen which needs glasses?
The no glasses technology is just around the corner, I'll rather wait another 12 months or so.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, he bought a projector that's capable of running at the 120Hz that decent 3D requires (but which can still show a normal image), software to convert his input signal to 3D, and glasses to then view that projected image. That's not quite the same as a 3D screen which needs glasses. And if there really is a no-glasses technology just a few months away (links?), then to project it at a 100" size, it will either be a software solution (in which case the OP has the hardware side of it already covered) or it will be a hardware solution that will be a lot more expensive than what the OP's using ($80, not counting the multi-use projector, computer system etc).

That all said, your point is clear, you'd rather not use a 3D system that requires glasses. Fair enough.

Shtopor

03-11-2011, 08:58 PM

Les, I did a lot of searching and reading about 3D before I got Acer.
1080p 3D projector is roughly 10 times more expensive and HDMI cable would be able to pump only movies at 3D 1080p and 24 fps (essentially 1080p/24 X2 for each eye)(using3:2 pulldown option) and if you want to play games in 3D, you need 1080X60 times 2 (each eye) which even 5000 bucks projector can't do. Even if it could using Display Port (which it doesn't) then another consideration is
videocard with new COD, think about it, 1920X1080(resolution)X60(fps)X2(each eye gets his own picture) that is twice more then 1280X720X60X2 which is roughly the same load on videcard as it would do at flat 1920X1080.
PS. I was sceptic of 1280X720 but let me tell you in 3D each eye gets 1 mil pixels while in 2D you get 2million pixels for both eyes. Don't know how to explain but that 3D dimension gives me more immersion then anything that I have seen today in 2d.
Friends came over and watched AVatar and they were very excited. Gran Turismo in 3D on PS3 looks absolutely gorgeous, you do feel how far that corner is and when to start braking.
Again, i feel for those who has medical problems watching 3D.

Les

03-11-2011, 11:29 PM

I hope nothing's getting lost in translation here.

I'm not a sceptic of 1280x720, as I've seen something very similar, and I have no doubt it looks great, as long as you don't get closer than about 4 feet to the screen when it's projected at about 100" diagonal, which you wouldn't do anyway under normal circumstances.

It's just that I did want to get that close to the screen, so as to have the in-game image 1:1 scale, as if I could just reach out and touch the objects in it, while having a lot of my peripheral vision filled with the rest of the screen. And what I found was, the resolutions you need to do that, while still getting a sharp well-defined image, would require using projectors that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and which aren't exactly designed for home use. Which is to say, I want the impossible.

It's not to say 1280x720 projected at 100" and viewed from 6-8 feet away, doesn't look good or isn't immersive, even in 2D. It is. And if anyone ever gets the chance to check it out, I can recommend doing so.

And more than that, if you can now buy a projector for under $500 that will let you do that, well...

In regards to 3D home projection, I haven't done any research into it before now. I didn't even know there were 120Hz capable projectors. But after what you've said and from what I've since read, I can see you Acer H5360 users are onto something there with that.

Incidentally, your mentioning the 3D being able to help you judge the distance of corners in Grand Turismo, reminds me of something else about normal 2D gaming. There have been a few times over the years when I've been playing a game and due to the way the in-game world is represented by what is basically 2D artwork, it's been practically impossible to judge the distance between in-game objects. Sometimes the artwork will combine or overlap in such a way that there's just no way of knowing where one object begins and the other one ends, or even if they're separate objects. Viewing the scene in 3D in those cases would eliminate that problem altogether. Depending how it's implemented of course. Not making any real point there, just thinking out loud.

Anyway, it does look like technology has finally reached the point where it's more affordable now to project games and movies and TV(?) at home, at an acceptable resolution, and in 3D as well. Doing so isn't a high priority for me right now, but it's good to know it's an option.

Have fun with it.

MikkOwl

03-12-2011, 02:59 AM

Les, I did a lot of searching and reading about 3D before I got Acer. [...] Don't know how to explain but that 3D dimension gives me more immersion then anything that I have seen today in 2d.
Friends came over and watched AVatar and they were very excited. Gran Turismo in 3D on PS3 looks absolutely gorgeous, you do feel how far that corner is and when to start braking.
Again, i feel for those who has medical problems watching 3D.
I read the whole topic. Interesting.

1. It should not be possible to get depth perception through these methods when viewing objects 10+ meters away in the game world. In reality there is no such sensation. Could work only if exaggerated (making the world look smaller than it really is). Anything inside an aircraft cockpit should stand out nicely however.

2. With all the hassle of these displays taking up huge space, it makes me think about using pricy bulky inconvenient speakers instead of head mounted (headphones) for sound. Surely some kind of high resolution, large head mounted displays must become available at some point soon. Been waiting forever. They would be very easy to work with and would work PERFECTLY with our typical TrackIR.

3. I have never - ever - been able to see anything except 'double image' when using any kind of 3D illusion. Both images and movies. I have crappier vision on one of my eyes which is probably the reason. The depth perception is still good but not as good as some of you people. Since I can't see this effect in reality much I don't regret it in gaming either. I simply have no idea what I am missing and don't have to try to get such a system. I feel lucky in that respect. :) I have a TrackIR 5 and I just could never go back to not using headtracking. Before I tried, I had no idea how awesome it was. If someone can't use it, I would pity them and think "They don't know what they are missing".

swiss

03-12-2011, 04:08 AM

It's just that I did want to get that close to the screen, so as to have the in-game image 1:1 scale, as if I could just reach out and touch the objects in it, while having a lot of my peripheral vision filled with the rest of the screen. Which is to say, I want the impossible.

What you seek for has a name: The Holodeck of the USS Enterprise. ;)

I actually misunderstood Shtopor as I was talking about 3d displays.(TV, tablet etc.)
Check out Cbit news for more info on that.

Les

03-12-2011, 07:23 PM

...It should not be possible to get depth perception through these methods when viewing objects 10+ meters away in the game world...

...Surely some kind of high resolution, large head mounted displays must become available at some point soon...

...I have never - ever - been able to see anything except 'double image' when using any kind of 3D illusion. Both images and movies...

It's my understanding too that, for the reasons you mentioned, a combat flight sim wouldn't be best vehicle for showing off 3D effects, though I'm sure it would have it's moments.

There are a couple of technologies in development that could be applied to things like head mounted displays. OLED's (Organic Light Emitting Diodes) is one. There's at least one other I've seen that comes in a similar bendy film-type form, and which doesn't require a backlight for illumination. Not sure, beyond the obvious, what's holding up the development there.

I too could never come to terms with the blurry double-imaging that other people didn't seem to mind when viewing 3D illusions. That all seems to be gone now though, based on what I experienced when watching 'Avatar' at the movies in 3D. I'm assuming that's the same or a similar technology to what Shtopor is using at home. If that's the case, then there's no blurriness, flickering or discolouration involved.

Les

03-12-2011, 07:37 PM

What you seek for has a name: The Holodeck of the USS Enterprise. ;)

I actually misunderstood Shtopor as I was talking about 3d displays.(TV, tablet etc.)
Check out Cbit news for more info on that.

That Holodeck is going to be pretty damn crowded if and when it finally becomes real. :) So many people waiting for that.

As for the TV, tablet type 3D displays, I think most people agree they have to be glasses free or they're not going anywhere. The glasses free ones that have been shown so far aren't that impressive either apparently. Partly because, as Shtopor mentioned, you have to have your image over a certain size before you overcome the 'looking into a fish-tank' effect, which is, to put it another way, like watching a moving diorama, a box with little models in it depicting some scene. You'd either have to be projecting a big image, or be using some kind of VR goggle type arrangement to get over that, and to make 3D worthwhile, in my opinion.

shabir

07-14-2011, 11:51 AM

whether at this moment the game runs in 3D? I wonder about buying a monitor with 120Hz 3D glasses NVIDIA Delivers

Please advice

SQB

07-14-2011, 01:42 PM

I had il2 working fine in stereoscopic, makes flying the bf109 GREAT fun because you can see down the sight with your right eye (I have no TIR). Unfortunately I was just testing it out as I don't have a 3d monitor, so I had il2 coming up twice on my screen, once on the left and once on the right, and had to cross my eyes to see 3d... I was ok with that.

What I was not so Ok with is the fact that the damn program I was using was only a 2 week trial :evil:

badfinger

07-14-2011, 03:18 PM

This seems like a great solution and I hope it is as good as it sounds. But, I think I'll hold off, until I know for sure this all works with my TrackIR5. I wouldn't be willing to give that up for 3D.

binky9

DickDastardly

07-15-2011, 04:49 AM

I have the same projector and agree that it's a great way to get amazing 3D in games on a huge screen for a fraction of the cost of a large 3D TV. The extra immersion you get absolutely transforms the experience and it also works great with TrackIR, although on my setup I need to ensure that my nVidia IR emitter (which sends the sync signal to the 3D glasses) has no line of sight to my TrackIR camera otherwise it interferes. This isn't a problem, however, as I just place the TrackIR camera behind my head and wear the reflectors backwards whilst the nVidia emitter sits just by my keyboard so my body blocks the TrackIR from seeing it).

Flight sims are particularly suited to 3D -not because you get any particular advantage in aiming at ranges of several hundred feet (you don't, as there's little if any difference between the image each eye sees at that kind of range) but simply because the feeling of actually being in a plane soaring high above the landscape is so enhanced.

Having said that, COD is just about the worst modern sim available in terms of stereoscopic 3D compatability -shadows and water are rendered incorrectly in 3D, clouds are only drawn on those areas of the screen which would have been visible from a monoscopic viewpoint (so each eye sees a blank area apparently cut out of the cloud either side of objects like cockpit struts) and the text "icons"/labels on other planes are drawn at screen depth rather than at the depth of the object they're labelling (which is really, really distracting).

This is a real shame because previous installments in the IL2 series were amazing in stereoscopic 3D (back when the nVidia 3D drivers supported OpenGL). Hopefully once the devs have addressed other issues which affect more people (like SLI support) they'll get around to fixing the 3D anomalies as it would be wonderful to be able to play COD properly in 3D (even now the cockpits look gorgeous in 3D if you turn off shadows).
Cheers,
DD

shabir

07-15-2011, 07:56 AM

-----------------------------------------

if anyone of you played CoD on 3D TV or monitor 3D & glasses nvidia?

If so, please share your experiences because I read on other forums different extremes Pets.

-----------------
P.S.
the list of games supported by the 3D nvidia does not have CoD !

.

adonys

07-15-2011, 10:20 AM

I did, with the system in my specs and using an Samsung 3D Gaming LCD 2233RZ (LCD 22 inch 5ms) and Nvidia 3D vision Kit.

I don't have time to post a detailed account of it, all I can say is that the overall result was pretty ok.

Rodney

07-15-2011, 12:41 PM

"Having said that, COD is just about the worst modern sim available in terms of stereoscopic 3D compatability -shadows and water are rendered incorrectly in 3D, clouds are only drawn on those areas of the screen which would have been visible from a monoscopic viewpoint (so each eye sees a blank area apparently cut out of the cloud either side of objects like cockpit struts) and the text "icons"/labels on other planes are drawn at screen depth rather than at the depth of the object they're labelling (which is really, really distracting)."

Couldn't agree more. The original IL2 was absolutley brilliant in 3D. Once you've flown in 3D you can never go back to flying in 2D again. Which is why I no longer play COD because while the ground is brilliant the sky is doing something else altogether that makes COD unplayable in 3D and hence unplayable at all for me.

distant

07-15-2011, 09:33 PM

EDIT: someone from Nvidia 3D vision forum posted a solution to get the water to work in 3D, link below, please confirm that it does solve the water issue that you experience if possible since i'm also interested in getting the game for 3D playing: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=199565.

"Having said that, COD is just about the worst modern sim available in terms of stereoscopic 3D compatability -shadows and water are rendered incorrectly in 3D, clouds are only drawn on those areas of the screen which would have been visible from a monoscopic viewpoint (so each eye sees a blank area apparently cut out of the cloud either side of objects like cockpit struts) and the text "icons"/labels on other planes are drawn at screen depth rather than at the depth of the object they're labelling (which is really, really distracting)."

Couldn't agree more. The original IL2 was absolutley brilliant in 3D. Once you've flown in 3D you can never go back to flying in 2D again. Which is why I no longer play COD because while the ground is brilliant the sky is doing something else altogether that makes COD unplayable in 3D and hence unplayable at all for me.

DickDastardly

07-16-2011, 03:12 PM

EDIT: someone from Nvidia 3D vision forum posted a solution to get the water to work in 3D, link below, please confirm that it does solve the water issue that you experience if possible since i'm also interested in getting the game for 3D playing: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=199565.

Using the settings in that thread, particularly turning "Land shading" down to low does improve the water somewhat, but waves, ripples and reflections are still drawn at the wrong depth so IMO it's still not really playable in 3D, particularly as the skybox, horizon haze and sun glare are all rendered incorrectly too.

The other problem I mentioned above with the clouds can be "solved" by turning them off in the Realism settings, but the same issue also affects things like smoke and fire as you can see in the screenshot below:

http://www.mikesteven.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/IL2/smoke_anomaly.jpg

(Note the missing strip of smoke just to the right of the chimney in the foreground and the area just next to the plane where the flames aren't rendered because they would have been blocked from the player's view when playing in 2D). Here's (http://www.mikesteven.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/IL2/smoke_anomaly.jps) the same shot in stereo format.
Cheers,
DD