As suspected and as with most things in our cherished hobby, one must sacrifice one or more things to get to a goal. My goal was splashing my virtual cockpits across three 19" monitors. The Matrox Triplehead box did that but it takes a LOT of power to drive it and I have had to tone down some sliders to accommodate the drain on the overall performance. I use a mid-range Intel Duo Core 2 and by golly when they release Penryn next year, I'll be getting one. I'm using a 512meg NVidia 8500 as my base card, someday I'll spring for more. Until then, seeing your VC in near full real-life size including the first officers side and the wide expanse of the outside FSX world is undeniably worth the whole thing. I'll never go back, that's for sure. I'll kill a lot of sliders to keep this experience intact. Randy Jura, KPDX

>As suspected and as with most things in our cherished hobby,>one must sacrifice one or more things to get to a goal. My>goal was splashing my virtual cockpits across three 19">monitors. The Matrox Triplehead box did that but it takes a>LOT of power to drive it and I have had to tone down some>sliders to accommodate the drain on the overall performance. I>use a mid-range Intel Duo Core 2 and by golly when they>release Penryn next year, I'll be getting one. I'm using a>512meg NVidia 8500 as my base card, someday I'll spring for>more. Until then, seeing your VC in near full real-life size>including the first officers side and the wide expanse of the>outside FSX world is undeniably worth the whole thing. I'll>never go back, that's for sure. I'll kill a lot of sliders to>keep this experience intact.> >>>Randy Jura, KPDXRandy,Would it be possible to post a couple of pictures of your display setup?Thanks,Scott

You can't really say it's not perfect just because you got a performance hit when you connected it up.You're asking your system to put out 3840x1024 pixels - on the same setup you're bound to take a hit. It's not a limitation of the TH2Go hardware.

Hello,I would like to do the same thing....3 19" LCD's...computer is the following:HP XW4400E6600 processor2GB RAM7900GS 512m Graphics Card480w PSUWill my system run the three monitors well? With 2 it works great but the third would be perfect.Thank you!Chris

I would like to do the same thing for THTG.What 19" LCD appear best for this? I'm presently trying a Samsung 931C and am not impressed. Suggestions on a 19: welcomed.Thank you

You ideally want three identical panels (for colour matching etc.) - native 1280x1024 (i.e. 17" or 19" although if you have a good scaler then the same resolution on higher res panels, e.g. 1600x1200 can look fine) with as thin side bezels as possible.Most important is the graphical power to output 3840x1024 pixels. In FSX that is mostly under the CPU realms whereas in most other games the GPU will probably be the bottleneck at such resolutions.

I'm running a 17"LCD with 2 19"CRTs in a triple 180

CPU limiting - no...It will be the graphics memory....3840x1024 x 32 bit = 125 Meg just to render the screenNext there is the MIPS textures to be help in GPU memoryand then AF or AA which eat memory depending on the level.Then there is the FSB speed (>1000Mhz is a must), PCI-express absolutely requiredHit the graphics memory limit on this type of setupand you might as well make coffee while waiting for a screen torefresh.Tom

>CPU limiting - no...>It will be the graphics memory....>3840x1024 x 32 bit = 125 Meg just to render the screenNot quite. Bits and bytes...3840x1024x32 / 8 / 1024 / 1024 = 15MB

Chris:I have a DELl XPS Gen 4 that is 2+ years old (regular P4 generation, 3.80Ghz), 2GB RAM, 460W PSU, and an eVGA 7900 GTO card 512 RAM and I can tell you Triplehead absolutely rocks on my system.I have 2x20.1" flanking LCDs and a center 24" DELL and even though the aspect ratios differ, the sim in the VC and all views generally looks stunning and runs at great frames. I run at 3840x1024x32 bit with 4x FSAA and 8x anisotropic and most FS2004 DISPLAY sliders 2/3 right or fully right. I limit visibility to 90nm and clouds to 60nm and 3D cloud density is 60% or 70%.All default FS2004 aircraft and default derivatives aircraft run fabulously at amazingly high frames--ranging typically from 25 to as high as 90 fps depending on the aircraft type and VC panel. The only aircraft that run somewhat sub optimally in certain conditions are the venerable PMDG 744 and Level D 767 which usually run in the 20-30 fps range with their intense VCs. And when I say sub optimal I mean I still get generally very good optics and good fluidity but that can slow down a lot around dense airports with AI traffic and heavy wx. Both of those aircraft are very processor intensive and at times it shows. I also run at least a dozen hardware items in USB 2.0 ports and with USB hubs for aircraft control and cockpit operations--primarily GoFlight and CH stuff. My temps are usually in the low to mid 50s Centigrade.So you should be OK with your rig and TH2G on 3x19". Once you try it, you never think of anything less!Good luck.JS

I am waiting for a Matrox Triple head that would support a 24" wide screen in the middle and two 20.1" to the left and right of it. In all its glory.Don't know.. how long I would have to wait!:)Manny

Is there that great a differece between FS2004 and FSX with a Triplehead? I can't get better than 10 FSP and with same payware aircraft under 5 at places. I feel as I"m doing something wrong here or not setting up properly. I'm using a E6400 Intel DuoCor 2 and a NNVIDIA 8500 with 512megs and 4 GIG RAM on a ASUS P5W DH Deluxe. I have toyed with the sliders. Once I ran all of them down to zero, yes zero did not get a lot of difference. I wonder if my FSX config. file is bothered?Randy Jura, KPDX

>>>I am waiting for a Matrox Triple head that would support a 24" wide screen in the middle and two 20.1" to the left and right of it. In all its glory.>>>Don't know.. how long I would have to wait!A little while if you wanted native resolutions - it would have to be DX10 only since DX9 doesn't support resolutions larger than 4096x4096