Spanned widescreen ponderings

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

I received my two 22" Acer LCDs last night and hooked them up to both my desktop and notebook systems. Whilst both cards supported dual screen operation at native resolution (2 x 1680x1050), only the nVidia card supported horizontal span at native res (3360x1050) whereas the ATI card peaked out at something weird like 3200x1200.In FS9, performance was still very acceptable going from single to spanned dual monitors on the notebook. With the default flight (KSEA in Cessna 182), all sliders to the right, 80% UT traffic, 4XAA/8XAF and I was pulling 33 FPS with the single screen and 27FPS spanned dual. And let me say that FS9 looked great in all its double widescreen glory for a relatively small performance penalty.FSX beta 3 was similarly beautiful, this time with the default flight (Friday Harbor with ultralite, but on the ground), in-game AA/AF turned on, all other settings high. I was getting 26 FPS with the single display and 13 FPS spanned, thus effectively halving performance for double the screen real estate. As others have found with FSX, FPS plays a much lower role in gameplay experience with this title and it was actually quite pleasurable to fly around the area even with such an FPS hit.The other day in here a few of us discussed whether the Matrox double/triplehead2go system was a better way to go than spanned mode. I still think the performance impact is the same whether you span or go through this third party box, as your GPU still has to push all those extra pixels around regardless of whether your video card's or Matrox's display driver does the final combining. Either way, I'm going to need more GPU grunt to power FSX nicely.I would say that a three normal screen, triplehead2go combo, would offer a better overall FS experience than a dual widescreen, spanned or doublehead2go combo of equivalent screen surface are because you: 1. get a better VC wrap around effect by being able to position three separate displays,2. the center of your virtual screen is the center of one of the screens, as opposed the the join in the two screens.Pricewise, the spanned widescreen setup seems to win (and we're talking basic screen models here):1. 3 x $200 19" displays + $300 Matrox Unit = $900 versus 2. 2 x $300 22" widescreen displays = $600Comments welcome.Gary

[brynjames 0]

Great post Gary. I'll be keeping a watch on this thread as I am considering which way to go myself. I agree that FPS are a much overrated issue - had a lot of fun myself at less than 10 fps in FS5 :) - what are your graphics cards?Did you use virtual cockpit or 2D view? Were the panel stretched (distorted horizontally) or did they display correctly?What is the total the field of view angle with the two WS monitors on FS9? (See my post asking about the field of view on the TH2GO a couple of days ago - no answers yet). It will be interesting to compare the FOV with that from the TH2GO.I agree that the TH2GO seems to have the advantage of the unobscured centre line compared with a dual monitor solution. One possibility is to shift the monitors to your left and put the view forward centre line somewhere on the right hand screen. After all, most captains have a much better view on the left side of the aircraft.I was surprised that the dual monitor solution came out so far ahead on price. I guess WS monitor prices have been falling while I haven't been looking!Maybe you could post a quick digicam picture of your setup :) Thanks.--Bryn

[brynjames 0]

Another thought Gary: old CRT monitors are very very cheap now if you have the room for them, and they are pretty sure to have the VGA interface necessary for the TH2GO. My local paper often has 21 inch CRTs for sale at

[Guest Andy Dyson]

>I would say that a three normal screen, triplehead2go combo,>would offer a better overall FS experience than a dual>widescreen, spanned or doublehead2go combo of equivalent>screen surface are because you: >1. get a better VC wrap around effect by being able to>position three separate displays,>2. the center of your virtual screen is the center of one of>the screens, as opposed the the join in the two screens.Great post Gary. Lots of folks will be looking at these options. I think you hit the nail on the head with the above.All the best,Andy

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Bryn,My graphics cards are listed in my sig, ie. ATI X800XT AIW 256M for the desktop and nVidia 6800 Go 256M in my notebook.As requested, I have attached a couple of pictures of my setup. The first shows the default FS9 flight in VC view, which I zoom out to 0.50 to keep everything in the right perspective. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157305.jpgThe second shows the 2D cockpit of the same flight and, as you can see, the panel is horribly stretched. FWIW, I'd say any widescreen setup is going to do this to 2D panels, whether TH2GO is used or not.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157306.jpgThe last shows a screen shot from FSX beta 3 and gives you an appreciation of the wide view you get whilst in the air and that the screen join is much less noticable when not split by a runway. Also, FSX is zoomed out to 0.30 to achieve an equivalent perspective correction to what I set in FS9.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157307.jpgI'm not sure what you mean by total FOV, but maybe my statement of zoom settings above answers your question.Gary

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Speaking of CRTs, here is a photo of the three CRTs I replaced with my new widescreen setup, now a hand-me-down for my son Cameron.Garyhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/157308.jpg

[DescendDescend 25]

Great pictures. I must learn to upload with that quality. I think the join may get at you in the end but it looks good.

[Magic Man 2]

Remember also that you can resize the 2d panel - it's just a bitmap like any other guage.

[brynjames 0]

>My graphics cards are listed in my sigDoh! Must remember to read the sigs before asking silly questions.>I'm not sure what you mean by total FOV, but maybe my>statement of zoom settings above answers your question.I would like to know what the total angle is between the two screen edges displayed in the sim - go into slew mode, rotate aircraft to point to object originally on left hand edge and read heading, then do same to an object originally on the right hand screen edge (easier near airport buildings than over the sea :) ). FS9 at standard zoom on a 4:3 screen gives 45 degrees total field of view. What do you get?Great pictures, thanks.--Bryn

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Just did a quick check of FOV with FSX and VC zoomed out to 0.30 (furthest it will go) using the method you state, and I come up with 90 degrees. Is this good?Gary

[brynjames 0]

>Just did a quick check of FOV with FSX and VC zoomed out to>0.30 (furthest it will go) using the method you state, and I>come up with 90 degrees. Is this good?Hmmm, if you mean 90 degrees over the two screens then you are just getting the same 45 degrees per screen that is the 'normal' for single 4:3 scren display.So you aren't actually seeing any more of the FS World by having wide screens than you would with conventional 4:3 screens; it is just stretched out more. That is not to say that the overall visual experience isn't superior when it is actually on your desk. I really would like to know what the Matrox TH2GO folks are getting but I can't get anyone to answer my thread - they are probably having too much fun flying with it :)--Bryn

[Manny 1,293]

Hi Gary.Do you think it would be possible to use two 24" widescreen?I have a single 24" Dell widescreen that I use now. I was thinking of replacing it with three 20" LCD + TripleHead.But If I could add another 24" the way you have it. That might be an option. Except each 24" resolution is like 1920 x 1200MAnny

[kiwimail 1]

Just the post I'm looking for at the moment! A couple more questions, Would there be a need for AA with a res as high as 1920 X 1200 and Magic man mentioned resizing the 2D bitmap,would this eliminate the stretching as it does look terrible and I tend to use 2D a bit more than VC.Thanks

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

Manny,The nVidia cards seem to support higher span resolutions than ATI, so you should be right with your 7600 graphics cards (but 3840x1200 IS getting right up there). Might be best to check with your video card OEM to see if your car will support this resolution before splashing out the extra cash on the second 24" LCD. Alternatively, some of the folks here is this forum run dual 24" or 30" displays with nVivdia cards and you could see if they will trial this resolution for you.Also, just be aware with the TH2GO that it's maximum supported resolution is 3840 x 1024, so you want to make sure each of the three 20" LCDs you are alternatively considering run at 1280x1024, otherwise you will not be running at native resolution (= blurry graphics). This is why most people opt for 3 x 19" panels because most 19" panels have a native resolution of 1280x1028 and hence are perfectly suited to the TH2GO.Gary

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

As an AA junkie, I wouldn't say say there is no need for AA at high resolutions, but it could certainly be turned down a notch or two for neglible impact visually if performance was an issue running high levels of AA.I know how to temporarily resize 2D panels by undocking them and adjusting to size with my mouse, but I don't know how to do it on a more permanent basis. I used to be a 2D man myself until my recent acquisition of TrackIR4, and now I fly VC whenever I can, but that's a whole different topic of discussion :-) Gary