Flight Ace wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 2:33pm:


Just for clarification to other readers, about my "removed post".  When I said, "So you want to play with 747s, take this ye diabolical fiend" I assume that YOU know I was being tongue-in-cheek, but I just wanted to clarify that for others who might find it esoteric.
     Shortly thereafter I deleted that post because I felt, later on, that it was completely fair to have your screenshots stand next to the ones I had already posted, without further competition, and let the OP consider both.  Frankly, I think a multi-screen solution beats the pants off of a single monitor, but in the interests of harmony, I was trying to back off a bit, and didn't want to be overbearing.  Apparently that was in vain.  So let me add that just like everyone else in the world, until the Th2go, I did all of my flight simming/video gaming on single monitors, of all different sizes.  When I stepped up to the 3-monitor setup, it was a complete sea-change.  It was so superior to a single monitor setup, IMO, that I couldn't even believe it.  I wondered how I ever did anything on a single monitor.  If the OP is still reading this thread, one drawback to a multi-monitor solution, is that you will never want to go back.  I'm not out to win a p*ssing contest, I just strongly feel that the multi-monitor solution is a genuine "step up", but without any intention of talking down those who have architected their systems differently:  And that is a hard balance to strike.  I also won't say that there are not complexities to the multi-screen architecture, and that vertical FOV remains a bit of a problem, but not an intractable one.


Flight Ace wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 2:33pm:


And yeah, it is true.  If you notice, when you say "the real resolution is 1680x1050" that is also nothing more than a "dimension" without regard to screen size.  If you are truly talking about "pixel density" than you must state "X number of pixels PER unit of AREA".  (calling that a "resolution", is also correct, but it is typically only used when printing photos or formatting pictures for the web, and is most certainly not the vernacular in video gaming discussions)  So either be consistent about it, or drop it.  Bottom line:  If you insist on claiming that the one and only use of the term resolution refers to DENSITY, then your own reference to 1680x1050 as the actual resolution of setup that has 5040x1050 pixel dimension, is therefore likewise "incorrect" by your own definition of the term.  Think about it.

.....
Look, all I can say about this thread, is that it is quite clear that you are very satisfied with your system, and wouldn't do things any other way.  It meets your needs, but you also said you were interested in expanding your FOV.  So you can go multimonitor, or you can spend a bazillion bucks on a mega-size monitor that still won't give you anywhere near the desk space and absolutely no "wrapparound" effect at all.  Resolution, as I'm using the term, Pixel Dimension, as you insist, does matter because I'm spreading my FOV over many more pixels;  Zooming out to achieve the same FOV when you are only working with 1920x1200 all comes at the expense of image quality.  (and if you want the 2500x1600 monitor, get out your wallet)  Projectors seem to be a different animal altogether. I suspect that JBaymore can get away with projecting 1024x768 because he is only projecting outside scenery, and not virtual instruments.  If he wanted to work with a projected virtual cockpit as well as the outside scenery, I don't think it would look as good (perhaps he can comment to clarify/correct that assertion).When designing my own system I considered all of these factors at the time, as well, and decided on something that would best satisfy my sense of immersion and max value.  I remain SO VERY glad that I chose my architecture over a single screen solution of any size.  Others may differ, and that is totally cool by me.  To each their own.

BTW, I do not consider my system to be a "sim pit" or "homebuilt cockpit."  I consider it a "high end video gaming rig" that was designed to be able to accomodate other games as well.  (I just don't know what those other video games are yet, because I don't have any others installed presently)

(Kind note to administrators:  Just in case you are considering locking this thread, I would really appreciate if you didn't, and I hope Flight Ace would agree.  IMO, when you lock threads, it leaves a bitter taste to all the parties involved.  It isn't a free for all, yet, and we're all adults  )

to the op:

The system sounds good. imo, try to get a GTX 460 1gb that is also factory overclocked to around 850mhz. It is 26% faster than a normal GTX 460 and reaches performance levels of the GTX 470.

example:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130575

Titan_Bow wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:




The architecture you are proposing should have no problem running FSX. Also, from what I have read, running three monitors as compared to one, you will see little difference in performance. However, A LITTLE MORE COSTLY. The system you are proposing is one step up from mine and I am getting excellent performance.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

I made a statement in my previous post that "from what I have read, running three monitors as compared to one, you will see little difference in performance".

Since then, I have done some more reviews from different forums and apparently this is not true. A number of people have indicated major hits in performance from switching from one or two monitors to three. This is right in line with snippyfsxer's point that when running large commercial aircraft, like the Concord, and in an area like Heathroe in the rain with various add-on software, you would need to back off the sliders a notch or two. Some of the forum articles indicated significant lowering of sliders, however I was not sure of their PC architecture. If nothing else, thess comments raise the question just how well does a high end PC three monitor system running near or above 4GHz compare to a high end one monitor system in the environment described above. The best way is to make a comparison. To aid in this i am including the following four screens from my one monitor rig covering Heathrow and the London area in weather.

Starting roll from runway 27 right at  41.3 FPS
www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288321631.jpg

Lined up for takeoff inside cockpit runway 27 right at 31.3 FPS
www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288322288.jpg

Climbing out at 86.4 FPS
www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288347749.jpg

Low pass over London at  50.5 FPS
www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288311678.jpg

My PC is maxed out for best performance and performs exceptionally well with its one monitor. However, before I make the investment to add two more monitors, a more definitive description of the performance, resolution, and field of view is needed resulting from making the change to three monitors. Titan_Bow needs to know which is best for him based on his budget and also the end result.

All that is missing right now is being pointed to some solid evidence(screens)with performance data that backs up the nice things that have been written about FSX 3 monitor displays.

The screenshots you provided do not give your 3 monitor architecture justice when it comes to showing how it enhances widening the view. You provided a much better screen (inside the cockpit) with a previous post that shows well that wrap around internal cockpit view as well as extended external scenery. And of course you get the same kind of extended viewing when the camera is on the outside. What is there not to like?

http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288844521.jpg

I am still in the process of reviewing a number of different architectures and software that may eventually lead me to adding more (one or two) monitors. When, and if I do, I will use identical 26 inch SAMSUNG monitors like the one I am currently using. Further, I have to assure myself that I will not degrade the performance I am currently getting now from my one monitor. For example, flying over Chicago, Illinois or Manhatton, New York with a smooth flight (20 to 35FPS) with their full compliment of buildings, scenery and heavy aircraft density.

http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288896877.jpg

http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288868856.jpg

http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1288822991.jpg

One last note. The RAM I have been using in my current PC (Assembled over a year ago) is CL9 Corsair. I could not have asked for better performance. I recently noticed that Mushkin CL6 RAM is on sale at Newegg and have purchased 6 GBs. I should be receiving it in a few days and will report back the effect it has on my FSX performance and over-clocking. Currently my CL9 Corsair RAM, when measured by the Windows Experience Index assessment from a scale of 1.0 to 7.9 is assessed at 7.8.

Now that I have received and installed my new Mushkin CL6 RAM, how does it compare to the CL9 RAM previously installed?

Over-clocking:

Before installing the new RAM, I was able to over-clock to a stable 3.82 MHz. With the new RAM, I increased the over-clocking to a stable 3.88 MHz. This is about the best I can do with my i7 920 chip.

Performance as measured by the Windows Experience Index Assessment:

Assessments of key components are assessed on a scale of 1.0 to 7.9. Both the CL9 and CL6 RAM were assessed at 7.8.

Did FSX appear or perform any better with the new RAM?

I experience the same smooth flight conditions but thought the graphics painting was a little faster and some ground apperances were more pronounced. For example roads and railroad tracks appear with no abrupt changes in their direction or elevation. Lanes (1, 2, 3, or 4)in a highway are clearly shown with ongoing traffic and if on the side of a hill the road is not distorted or lopsided.

In Short.

1.  There is little difference in over-clocking ability,

2.  No difference in measured performance by Windows.

3.  The faster RAM does provide some enhancements to the overall FSX graphics presentation.

4.  CL6 RAM's faster timing is better, however, Either CL9 or CL6 RAM will work well running FSX in a high scale PC.