When using the Quest and Virtual Desktop, there are some distinct advantages in using Vorpx over ReShade. For fast games, or games requiring those extra fps (racing games, fast paced first person shooters) I would just start with Z-Buffer. As a guide though I recommend trying Geometry 3D first, and if you don’t get a minimum of 30 fps, then the Z-Buffer technique would be a better option. For the record, I’m using a Oculus Quest with Virtual Desktop to stream the image.
When using the 3D options in Vorpx it really comes down to personal preference, and also it does depend on what VR Headset you are using. Yes, the 3D was clearly better, but the framerate dropped to half (about 30fps). Moving on to Geometry 3D was a different story. The results were quite good, and I only noticed a 3-8 fps drop. Running at 2560×1440 resolution (I like to try and get 60fps when I can) I first applied the Z-Buffer technique. As a comparison I tried both Z-Buffer and Geometry 3D in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Due to this though, keeping a modern game in the same resolution is almost impossible, as your frame rate will plummet. It effectively runs two game images simultaneously (much like standard VR). This 3D process requires a lot more horsepower to run, both CPU and GPU. While the 3D isn’t as good as Geometry the great trade off is that it has much less impact on performance. Which one you decide to use comes down to personal preference. Adaptive Z-Buffer adds the Depth of Field element.
Normal Z-Buffer allows you to tweak the 3D strength (quite easy in Vorpx) and has no Depth of Field. Keeping this simple the Z-buffer technique normally splits the image in two (natively it looks similar to a half sbs 3D movie), and adds an extra dimension (Z axis) using a sophisticated algorithm to calculate near and far objects. What’s the difference between Geometry 3D and Z-Buffering 3D? I’ll do my best to provide a simple explanation: I find the Vorpx configuration for Z-Buffer to be better, because it seems have less artefacts and weirdness going on, particularly within the game menus. The Z-Buffering technique used is quite similar to ReShade’s version as previously discussed in a previous blog post. Where Vorpx really shines though is the ability to provide either amazing Geometry 3D, or very impressive Z-Buffering to provide 3D in your games on your VR headset. I’ll add a caveat here too that not all 2D games are supported, but the ones that do support some form of VR or 3D are clearly stated on the Vorpx website. For me I find it hard to go back to a title I know I’ve played in a particular way (2D), and I don’t like to spend too much time playing around with Field of View (FOV) and Head Tracking settings. For specific first person titles, this works extremely well. Ralf created this to work with converting popular first person games into fully fledged VR titles, including head tracking. Vorpx has many configurable options, which can be a bit overwhelming at first.
It is a paid product, and well worth every cent if you love 3D. It is my application of choice for applying 3D to my 2D games. In my continuing quest (no pun intended) to find the best 3D for your VR headset, I’ve been taking a good look at Vorpx, a paid product that has been consistently improved over the last few years.