Simviation Forum - Some questions about a system for FSX?

Oct 7^th, 2010 at 4:27pm

Titan_Bow Offline
Colonel
virtual Cub owner
Longmont, CO

Gender:
Posts: 86

I am piecing together a system specifically for FSX, but my son will likely want to do some gaming on it as well. I am currently looking at using a 3Ghz i7 950, 6gbmRAM, Nvidia 460GTX 1gb, a dedicated Raptor HDD for FSX.
I have been toying with putting together some sort of simple small GA simpit, something that could be easily moved and assembled/dissambled. My question is, would FSX performance be better on one large monitor, say 36-42" or so, or 3 individual monitors ( a 22" in the center with 2 19" on the sides). I'd like to get the best performance I can, but at the same time maintaining a very simple setup that others could use if necessary. Any pointers or ideas? I see alot of simpit reference, but most of it seems to center around airliners. I may just bite the bullet and get something like Saiteks switch panel and multi panel.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Oct 7^th, 2010 at 11:41pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

When you talk about "one large monitor", what kind of pixel resolution are you talking?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Oct 8^th, 2010 at 10:48am

Titan_Bow Offline
Colonel
virtual Cub owner
Longmont, CO

Gender:
Posts: 86

I'm looking at a 42" LG that is 1920x1080.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Oct 8^th, 2010 at 8:21pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

Titan_Bow wrote on Oct 8^th, 2010 at 10:48am:

I'm looking at a 42" LG that is 1920x1080.

I think you should skip that. All you are getting is "big" but you aren't achieving any higher resolution or field of view. Not to mention that you will probably spend a thousand on that component alone.

IMO, a better option would be to buy three 21 inch monitors, resolution 1680x1050 (or more) for about 150 bucks apiece. You will achieve a resolution of 5040x1050. That will give you a field of view of at least 90 degrees, depending upon the level of zoom you use. There will be some fish-eye effect at the edges of your outer screens, but in practice, this is in the periphery of your vision. A TrackIr can help out because if you turn your head to look at something you see out of the corner of your eye, it will no longer be fisheyed (because you are looking directly at it). Kind of strange to get used to a TrackIr, but it is worth every penny, and I don't think any screen-spanning setup would be complete without it.

To run this, you have 2 options, basically. One is the Matrox Th2go. Depending on whether or not those monitors can easily dip below 60 hz, achieving that 5040 resolution may be hard, or not. (I can't do it with my monitors using just the Matrox). Overall, I think the Matrox has been a real pain, but there is now an alternative for Nvidia users.

I think a better solution is to skip the Matrox, and get yourself a second 400 series video card. When running in SLI, you will be able to take advantage of the Surround functionality included in the latest Nvidia drivers. You will be able to run all three of your monitors all the way up to their native resolution (if you wish), and full bezel management functionality is built in.

TH2go or not, SLI is something you should definitely think about anyway. When you are running Mega resolutions, that extra card really helps out with the processing power required to do decent Anti Aliasing, and other texture filtering. I have found that the difference between dual card operation vs single card operation was tangible. Besides, if your kids are going to use the machine for other games, those games probably are specifically designed to take full advantage of SLI. So that sounds like a win-win to me.

This system proposal could get kind of pricey. Don't be skimpy on the memory timings, the overclock, or the cooling. The last thing you want is to spend a couple of thousand, but be bottlenecked because you wanted to save 50 dollars here and there.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Oct 18^th, 2010 at 4:11pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

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

I am piecing together a system specifically for FSX, but my son will likely want to do some gaming on it as well. I am currently looking at using a 3Ghz i7 950, 6gbmRAM, Nvidia 460GTX 1gb, a dedicated Raptor HDD for FSX.
I have been toying with putting together some sort of simple small GA simpit, something that could be easily moved and assembled/dissambled. My question is, would FSX performance be better on one large monitor, say 36-42" or so, or 3 individual monitors ( a 22" in the center with 2 19" on the sides). I'd like to get the best performance I can, but at the same time maintaining a very simple setup that others could use if necessary. Any pointers or ideas? I see alot of simpit reference, but most of it seems to center around airliners. I may just bite the bullet and get something like Saiteks switch panel and multi panel.

I agree with snippyfsxer that a monitor the size you are proposing would be expensive. And by going to three 21 inch monitors with resolution of 1680 x 1050 would provide a better field of lateral vision. As for higher resolution I am probably wrong but I don't think so. When you stretch the FSX configuration with special software over three monitors, a third of the presentation is absorbed by each 1680 x 1050 monitor. This of course gives you a greatly improved field of vision laterally. However, what you see in resolution is three separate monitors each displaying a resolution of 1680 x 1050. Although the total adds up to 5040 x 1050, you are only seeing 1680 x 1050.

I had thought one time that I would revert to a three monitor FSX display. But after careful consideration I realized that when one looks straight ahead without turning his head, his or her field of vision is limited laterally. To match the 3 monitor display capability, you have to turn your head, even in a real airplane. And to do this in FSX with only one monitor you use the hat switch to pan as much as 360 degrees.

Because of this I decided on one big monitor with good resolution and that turned out to be a 26 inch SAMSUNG at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. If I ever get around to building a simpit I probably will go to multiple monitors.

Good luck with your venture.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Oct 18^th, 2010 at 11:42pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

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

I see alot of simpit reference, but most of it seems to center around airliners.

Check down in the Homebuild section... there are a number of people doing GA or smaller planes there. A lot of older threads have info that might be of use.

The nice thing about the triple monitor thing is that you can angle the two side ones to give a bit of a wrap around feeling.

A lot of people have reported good luck with the triple head to go setup for performance issues; check that solution out.

best,

............john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Oct 19^th, 2010 at 12:00am

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

Flight Ace wrote on Oct 18^th, 2010 at 4:11pm:

When you stretch the FSX configuration with special software over three monitors, a third of the presentation is absorbed by each 1680 x 1050 monitor. This of course gives you a greatly improved field of vision laterally. However, what you see in resolution is three separate monitors each displaying a resolution of 1680 x 1050. Although the total adds up to 5040 x 1050, you are only seeing 1680 x 1050.

I don't understand what that means that 5040 is really a stretched 1680...That isn't correct when we are talking the virtual cockpit. You are getting 3 times the field of view, and you have 3 times the horizontal resolution. When projecting a wide angle image into 2d, you either have to have the horizon curve like a rainbow, or you have to flatten the horizon, and get resultant "stretching". Just like a Mercator projection map, there is distortion at the poles...same thing with the outer periphery of the 3 monitor setup. The good news, is that all of the distortion IS in the periphery, so in practice, it isn't so bothersome. If you have 3 screens, and you put a drape over the outer two, your center screen will display the exact same thing as every body else's single screen. The extra two screens, are two screens more worth of visual data that the guy with the single screen does not have. The guy with the single screen would have to zoom waaaay out to get that kind of FOV and it would look terrible, with all of the projection distortion right in front of his face, and his instruments too small to be readable.
Like JBaymore pointed out, the proper way to do this, is to have the outer screens angled in towards you at around 30 degrees.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Oct 19^th, 2010 at 6:44pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

snippyfsxer wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 12:00am:

Flight Ace wrote on Oct 18^th, 2010 at 4:11pm:

When you stretch the FSX configuration with special software over three monitors, a third of the presentation is absorbed by each 1680 x 1050 monitor. This of course gives you a greatly improved field of vision laterally. However, what you see in resolution is three separate monitors each displaying a resolution of 1680 x 1050. Although the total adds up to 5040 x 1050, you are only seeing 1680 x 1050.

I don't understand what that means that 5040 is really a stretched 1680...That isn't correct when we are talking the virtual cockpit. You are getting 3 times the field of view, and you have 3 times the horizontal resolution. When projecting a wide angle image into 2d, you either have to have the horizon curve like a rainbow, or you have to flatten the horizon, and get resultant "stretching". Just like a Mercator projection map, there is distortion at the poles...same thing with the outer periphery of the 3 monitor setup. The good news, is that all of the distortion IS in the periphery, so in practice, it isn't so bothersome. If you have 3 screens, and you put a drape over the outer two, your center screen will display the exact same thing as every body else's single screen. The extra two screens, are two screens more worth of visual data that the guy with the single screen does not have. The guy with the single screen would have to zoom waaaay out to get that kind of FOV and it would look terrible, with all of the projection distortion right in front of his face, and his instruments too small to be readable.
Like JBaymore pointed out, the proper way to do this, is to have the outer screens angled in towards you at around 30 degrees.

In digital measurement, display resolution is measured by pixels per inch, not total number of pixels. That given, my monitor is designed to be set from 800 x 600 to 1920 x 1200 within its given size. Based on my tech spec (CPU, video card, RAM, etc.) 1920 x 1200 is recommended to get the best FSX displayed presentation and allows one to play high definition CDs. If I decided to go the 3 monitor route for FSX, I could add an identical monitor left and right and plug in a Tripplehead2go. I would end up with a great FSX system with expanded field of view and with each monitor running at their max designed resolution of 1920 x 1200. That is what I would see - no more. In your case, you are running three monitors. Check how their resolution are set. Whatever that is, that is the resolution you are seeing on your three screens.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:12pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

Flight Ace,
Okay, I see what you are saying. Yes, the clarity in pixels per inch will be the same or less, but of course, you will still have as much as three times as many pixels, if you have 3 screens. I have been using the term "Resolution" to refer to total pixel dimensions, regardless of pixel density, which I think is the common usage. You are specifically talking about pixels-per-inch, or dots-per-inch.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Oct 20^th, 2010 at 10:52pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

snippyfsxer wrote on Oct 19^th, 2010 at 7:12pm:

Flight Ace,
Okay, I see what you are saying. Yes, the clarity in pixels per inch will be the same or less, but of course, you will still have as much as three times as many pixels, if you have 3 screens. I have been using the term "Resolution" to refer to total pixel dimensions, regardless of pixel density, which I think is the common usage. You are specifically talking about pixels-per-inch, or dots-per-inch.

"Having as much as three times as many pixels, if you have three screens", has no meaning. Said another way, summing the number of pixels in your three monitors does not give you your resolution. As I stated earlier, In digital measurement, display resolution is measured by pixels per inch, not total number of pixels.

My single monitor PC runs at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. Your tripple monitor PC also runs at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. Why, because that is what my monitor and your three monitors are probably (mine is) set at. That is what we both are looking at. And this is good as we both can look at high def DVDs.

Finally, You made the statement that you have been using the term "resolution" to refer to total pixel dimentions, regardless of pixel density and which you think is the common usage. You are entitled to your opinion, but I must tell you based on my past experience and the amount of research done prior to my last three posts, I did not find this to be the case.

Now the up side of our ongoing posts is that I, you, and the people reading our back and forth and I think pleasant discussions are getting information that may be useful in the future. As for downsides - there are none.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Oct 21^st, 2010 at 12:14am

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

Flight Ace wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Finally, You made the statement that you have been using the term "resolution" to refer to total pixel dimentions, regardless of pixel density and which you think is the common usage. You are entitled to your opinion, but I must tell you based on my past experience and the amount of research done prior to my last three posts, I did not find this to be the case.

Alright, just admit it, we are both enjoying the adversiarial, but I hope overall friendly tone...

Like I said, I understand the difference between the common, vernacular usage and the strictly technical. Even your display driver will refer to "display resolution" as a dimension, not a density. If you are refering to PPI, then, you specify this. When somebody says a "display resolution of 1920x1200", everybody understands what that means. Rare indeed is the person who says "I run FSX at 72 pixels per inch." Don't bother pointing me to the Wikipedia entry, I read it, and it acknowledges the common usage as well as the techno-purist point of view that you are insisting on.

Flight Ace wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

"Having as much as three times as many pixels, if you have three screens", has no meaning.

Well, questions about terminology aside, it does have meaning, and here is what it means:
(You leave me no choice but to behave like a 5 year old, and assert my flight sim uber-ness

)

« Last Edit: Oct 21^st, 2010 at 9:53am by snippyfsxer »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Oct 21^st, 2010 at 8:27pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

snippyfsxer wrote on Oct 21^st, 2010 at 12:14am:

Flight Ace wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Finally, You made the statement that you have been using the term "resolution" to refer to total pixel dimentions, regardless of pixel density and which you think is the common usage. You are entitled to your opinion, but I must tell you based on my past experience and the amount of research done prior to my last three posts, I did not find this to be the case.

Alright, just admit it, we are both enjoying the adversiarial, but I hope overall friendly tone...

Like I said, I understand the difference between the common, vernacular usage and the strictly technical. Even your display driver will refer to "display resolution" as a dimension, not a density. If you are refering to PPI, then, you specify this. When somebody says a "display resolution of 1920x1200", everybody understands what that means. Rare indeed is the person who says "I run FSX at 72 pixels per inch." Don't bother pointing me to the Wikipedia entry, I read it, and it acknowledges the common usage as well as the techno-purist point of view that you are insisting on.

Flight Ace wrote on Oct 20^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

"Having as much as three times as many pixels, if you have three screens", has no meaning.

Well, questions about terminology aside, it does have meaning, and here is what it means:
(You leave me no choice but to behave like a 5 year old, and assert my flight sim uber-ness

)

[img]

[img]

Thank you for your screens.

My whole purpose in getting involved with this thread was and is to provide Titan_Bow some idea of the resolution as well as the difference he could expect when comparing an FSX configuration with one monitor to one with three. I don't think there is anything more to be said about the resolution. In regard to the difference in the lateral view a three monitor configuration will provide a wider field of view over that of only one monitor - this is obvious. But how much? - how do they compare?

I have provided two screens from my one monitor configeration so a comparison can be made with the two screens provided by snippyfsxer. I hope this will help in showing the difference and by how much.

www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1287775261.jpg

www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1287895661.jpg

« Last Edit: Oct 23^rd, 2010 at 10:48am by Flight Ace »

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Oct 24^th, 2010 at 10:38am

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Back to simple GA simpits........ basically the original question topic.....

From my point of view it is not the resolution that matters, it is the physical field of view. I am not doing this to take screenshots... I am simming for the feeling of flying.

I use a single projector in the simpit, only at 1024 x 768...... and the immersion experience from that is immense. I think physically bigger in the forward view is a big help in faking one into feeling it is "real". If I could get 8,000,000,000,000 pixels across that field of view without needing to rob Fort Knox, then that would be great.

But it is not necessary.

The framing of the windscreen in the simpit is such that I do not see the edges of the projection. THAT makes a huge difference.

best,

.................john

PS: I think Titan_Bow fell asleep on this thread long ago. Wink

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Oct 24^th, 2010 at 4:02pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

JBaymore wrote on Oct 24^th, 2010 at 10:38am:

The framing of the windscreen in the simpit is such that I do not see the edges of the projection. THAT makes a huge difference.

PS: I think Titan_Bow fell asleep on this thread long ago. Wink

Totally agree, (with the following agreeable clarification about my own machine). I run far less than the native resolution of my monitors. Field of View plus enough physical size to match that FOV, like you have, is the way to go. I used to experiment with a single 24 inch monitor and zooming out to .40 and it looked terrible, with everything "miniatiarized", which is why I stepped up to the surround screen effect. Now the outer monitors, which are angled at 30 degrees, essentially fall into the realm of my actual peripheral vision, while the main forward action, on the main screen is big and beautiful. If Titan Bow or Flight Ace can achieve that immersion, zoomed all the way out, with a single 24-46 inch monitor, than power to 'em. I have about 6 feet of horizontal view area to spread that field of view over, and that is what makes all the difference, because at that point we are starting to approach a real world physicallity. (a point I apparently was unable to convey in previous posts). The three screen solution is extremely cost effective to achieve the kinds of physical dimensions we are talking about. Projection is a whole other ballgame altogether.

BTW, JBaymore, do you have any Youtube links to your SimPit in action? I would love to see it. The other day I was watching a massively impressive 737 simpit, and I wondered if it was yours...

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Oct 25^th, 2010 at 2:33pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

I know little about simpit architecture or projecting to a screen rather than using a PC monitor but anxious to learn the pros and cons. I do agree with JBaymore comments reference immursion into the flight experience but would think that a higher resolution would play a role in the overall clarity of the presentation.

And, snippyfsxer, may I ask you to please refrain from making insinuating comments about how individuals run FSX on the fly. You have no idea how I run my rig and poor Titan Bow probably doesn't know what you are talking about. In your previous posts, you included two screens from your three monitor rig insinuating that your center screen represented what I or anyone else would see on their one monitor. That prompted me to provide a couple of similar screens, and which are not zoomed all the way out, so people could properly see the difference for themselves. I only got involved answering you in the first place because in your first responce to Titan Bow, you told him that he could buy three 21 inch monitors, resolution 1680x1050 and achieve a resolution of 5040x1050. That simply was and is not true. Yes your field of vision is better than one monitor. However, In my opinion, two monitor edges or even one disecting the instrument panel when your inside the cockpit is not realistic.

I am interested in improving the FOV for my current FSX PC configuration but not sure the best way to go about it. The one thing I do know, is what a realistic cockpit on the ground and in flight should represent in the way of inside and outside views. This is based on my experience over a twenty year period as a Master Army Aviator. I have flown both as pilot and instructor pilot in all kinds of weather and in eight different fixed wing (single and multi engine)and 4 different helicopters (Utility and Cargo). If you want a thrill, climb into a Bell H13 helicopter with the doors off and take it to 10,000 feet. It's like sitting in a chair at that altitude. By the way, the Bell H13 is the two place helo (Used in MASH) with the bubble and in my opinion, gives you the best FOV of any aircraft.

Now for immursion. This is not new to me. I have designed two platforms that are attached to both arms of my computer chair which adjusts in height and reclines. My joystick and trottles sit on top attached with Velcro. And of course I have a set of pedals. All this with my computer sits in a computer room. I achieve complete immursion after dark. Since all my computer components are black, by closing the door, pulling down the shade, and turning off the light, All I see in front of me is a lighted screen with no border. Probably the least expensive simpit. Very enjoyable.

I also read your last reply to me before you removed it. What did you call me - I believe it was diabolical fiend or something like that. Do you think I ought to change my call sign to that?

One last comment. I spend a great deal of time reviewing lots of different postings. I find it very commendable to see the number of times that you have come to the aid of individuals with your detailed comments. For what it's worth, I think we are getting closer to that same page.

Happy Holloween

Flight Ace

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Oct 25^th, 2010 at 4:26pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

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

I also read your last reply to me before you removed it. What did you call me - I believe it was diabolical fiend or something like that. Do you think I ought to change my call sign to that?

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:

you told him that he could buy three 21 inch monitors, resolution 1680x1050 and achieve a resolution of 5040x1050. That simply was and is not true.

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

)

« Last Edit: Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:36pm by snippyfsxer »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Oct 27^th, 2010 at 12:23am

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

Yes, I agree, don't lock the thread.

I was doing some research today and found some interesting information which resolves any issues I have had with how the resolution is given for a three monitor FSX configuration.

Here it is right out of the textbook.

I have 3 19inch 1280x960 monitor screens. My video card throws 3 images (each at 1280x960 resolution sized at 500 pixels) one to each screen. Each image will take up the same space, be the same size and appear the same on all three monitors. If you measure the resolution, it will be at the resolution of each monitor. If I run a resolution of 1280x960 on three different size monitors, each processing the same 500 pixel image, the physical image size will be different on each monitor, the space they consume will be different but the resolution stays the same. If I change the resolution of one monitor leaving the other two with parameters unchanged, then if the resolution increased, the 500 pixel image would decrease in physical size, if the resolution was decreased the pixel image physical size would increase. Finally, the total number of pixels from the three monitors is found by summing the pixels from each monitor.

Now if my video card throws one 1500 pixel image making up the FSX front, left, and right views and spreads them across three 1280x960 monitors, in order to maintain the same quality image as the 500 pixel image had on one monitor it would need a resolution of 3840x960. I believe that is what is being done by the Matrox triplehead2GO or other similar systems, and as I found out in my research today, : why it is probably advertised that way.

But remember, I am not an expert in this subject, the textbook could be wrong, and I am really looking Shocked

for answers before I end up building one of these beast.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Oct 27^th, 2010 at 5:31am

NNNG Ex Member

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Oct 27^th, 2010 at 9:04am

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

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

I am piecing together a system specifically for FSX, but my son will likely want to do some gaming on it as well. I am currently looking at using a 3Ghz i7 950, 6gbmRAM, Nvidia 460GTX 1gb, a dedicated Raptor HDD for FSX.
I have been toying with putting together some sort of simple small GA simpit, something that could be easily moved and assembled/dissambled. My question is, would FSX performance be better on one large monitor, say 36-42" or so, or 3 individual monitors ( a 22" in the center with 2 19" on the sides). I'd like to get the best performance I can, but at the same time maintaining a very simple setup that others could use if necessary. Any pointers or ideas? I see alot of simpit reference, but most of it seems to center around airliners. I may just bite the bullet and get something like Saiteks switch panel and multi panel.

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Oct 27^th, 2010 at 11:03am

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

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

I am piecing together a system specifically for FSX, but my son will likely want to do some gaming on it as well. I am currently looking at using a 3Ghz i7 950, 6gbmRAM, Nvidia 460GTX 1gb, a dedicated Raptor HDD for FSX.
I have been toying with putting together some sort of simple small GA simpit, something that could be easily moved and assembled/dissambled. My question is, would FSX performance be better on one large monitor, say 36-42" or so, or 3 individual monitors ( a 22" in the center with 2 19" on the sides). I'd like to get the best performance I can, but at the same time maintaining a very simple setup that others could use if necessary. Any pointers or ideas? I see alot of simpit reference, but most of it seems to center around airliners. I may just bite the bullet and get something like Saiteks switch panel and multi panel.

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.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Oct 27^th, 2010 at 6:58pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

If he is flying GA planes, the performance impact will be "minimal", but only in the sense that anything over 30fps is gravy anyway, IMO. If he ever wants to fly the Concorde from Heathrow, in the rain, with addon scenery, that is another matter; Depending on how good he feels about optimizing and/or backing off his sliders a notch or two, and what scenery/traffic addons he intends to run could make all the difference in the world as to whether he decides to go single monitor or multi-monitor. But I guess that is just stating the obvious. If the OP is still reading this thread, he should re-engage in this discussion, and the various participants can help fine tune his setup a bit better. He has only outlined his proposals in a minimalist, general way, and getting good performance is really dependent on the details.

As far as cost goes, a "big" single monitor is pretty pricey, and I think that one of those is equivalent to the other solution (3 no-frills monitors + 2 400 series gpus)

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Oct 28^th, 2010 at 5:56pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

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.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Oct 28^th, 2010 at 9:02pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

Despite my obsolete signature specs, my machine is now a 980x clocked at approx 4.4ghz. As a result I'm not at all sure that I can provide meaningful screenshots to match yours. There are so many many factors going into the reported fps at any given moment, including the ZOOM factor and distance from the camera (closer= faster), not to mention what the fps is at the precise moment of the screenshot. Furthermore, I always use an external frame limiter, but in this case I didn't. I don't really consider the Default 747 a good benchmark either, because it is so light, and I don't think you can judge the performance of quality payware planes by it. If this were the PMDG, my cockpit fps would be at right around 20, because thats what I optimized it for. My "best performance settings" obviously optimized to provide me with good framerates anyway, and may be lower than yours, or maybe not. For instance, MyTraffic provides a signifigant amount of activity at relatively low slider settings. So, in a nutshell, I don't really think this is all that helpful an exercise, but if you insist:

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 4:31pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

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.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Nov 3^rd, 2010 at 8:18pm

snippyfsxer Offline
Colonel

Posts: 404

Now for the down side of all of this.

I really doubt that you will get comparable frame rates on a 3 screen system at those levels of detail over heavy scenery like that, in a big Payware jet.

My current settings are 8x AA, 16x AF, Scenery/Autogen at Very Dense (one notch off max), no building shadows, no self shadows, no bloom, water 2x low, traffic settings so that approximately 50-75% of the gates at a big airport are filled, 0-10% road traffic depending on plane. I also made the tweak to the default.xml file (no chicken restaurants, etc). Also keep in mind that Ultimate Terrain will cost you a lot of fps, and much is dependent on what your settings are in that program. I don't care what has been said in past threads, you can get good image quality and detail, but you MUST have realistic expectations and forget the notion of "all sliders maxxed", at least for the big airplanes.

I have lod_radius at 7.5, and Cloud Coverage Density at 12 (max 8 with sliders), so there are some choices I made there that also cost me quite a bit of performance that others might not decide to do.

I don't want to leave the impression that the performance impact is light. But I do think that the immersion outweighs having to give up things like the shiny water. And depending on which planes you fly, that will vary

--The CL6 memory is probably a step in the right direction. You will reduce the potential for stutters quite a bit.

--Most 2D popup panels are set for a 4:3, or a 16:10 aspect ratio. Since a 3 widescreen setup will make your new screen ratio 48:10, that means that all of your 2d panels will be stretched by a factor of 3. With each aircraft you intend to fly, you will have to make a modification to the aircraft config file to correct this. Usually not a big deal. With the MD-11, it took about half of an hour because there are over 60 2d popup panels.

--The Matrox th2go used to stipulate that your monitors must be able to go down to 57mhz if you want the full resolution. There have been some workarounds to this, but not everybody is successful. Therefore, choose your monitors carefully, preferably according to some lists found on the Widescreen Gaming forum.

--You will need to get a hold of a specially resized Halo.bmp file, otherwise all of your lights will look like gigantic globes.

--When Widescreen=True in your fsx config, be prepared for some stretching of view as you get towards the outer edges of your outer monitors. Not a big deal in my opinion, but it might bother some.

****
I hope you don't think I'm trying to "sell" you the option of using wrapped screens, because I'm not, but if you ultimately decide to go this route, I'll help out as much as I can.

« Last Edit: Nov 4^th, 2010 at 12:53am by snippyfsxer »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Nov 12^th, 2010 at 2:29pm

Flight Ace Offline
Colonel
I Fly Sim!
Virginia

Gender:
Posts: 205

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.

1. Chaser MK-1 Full Tower ATX Computer Case
2. Core i7 3770K 1155 Processor OC to 4.7 GHz
3. ASUS Maximus V Gene Motherboard
4. EVGA GTX580 1536MB Video Card
5. 16 GB C8 G.SKILL Low Profile RAM
6. Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler
7. 240 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
8. 120 GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
9. 1 TB Backup Drive
10. Samsung TOC 26 inch Monitor

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: