Gary-(Reset MCP ALT) You have done a great service for our sim community with these benchmarks. Thank you. May I expand on a point which you touched upon- Quality. Frames per Second tells us no more about Image Quality than does Resolution. 50fps in an 800x600 resolution is not a great deal better or more useful than a paused 1600x1200 image ! Simulation "Quality" is the Quantity of Pixels multiplied by the Rate at which they are delivered to our eyes and brain. That is- the more pixels per second, the BETTER! If we multiply Resolution x FPS the result is Pixels per Second- a very large number, so dropping 6 zeros we get Mega Pixels per Second- MPS. At last a real measure of Flight Sim image QUALITY! Simmers with multi monitors, of course are seeing MORE pixels, so the formula becomes Resolution x FPS x No.of Monitors= MegaPixels. Now you see where I'm coming from. Multi Monitors produce an INHERENT gain in sim image QUALITY!. This seems to apply whether it's the result of TH2GO or multiple video cards. Gary recently showed TH2GO data that indicated a Quality gain well over 200%. In my case with 3 GPUs and a 4 yr old processor, I get consistent 40% better MPS. As long as FPS is above persistency of vision, give me lots of pixels!!! Still sceptical? Well, compare a movie house with the old square screen to the modern 40-50' wide screen. And once you have flown with a 48" wide perspective, there's no turning back!Alex Reid CYYJ

Alex,I concur. In fact I'd rather nudge one or two sliders down a notch and run at full TH2G span than run the higher settings at lower res. Even Crysis, which is very hard on the graphics card, looks quite stunning at TH2G res and medium settings compared to normal res at high settings. It's all about what makes YOU happy :-)Gary

There is a problem with your theory when it comes to TH2GO. in that case you are not improving video quality. Each Monitor will have the same quality as it would as a single unit. What you are doing is increasing your field of view, not by the increase in resolution per monitor, which would be a quality gain of the image, but by increasing the view size by adding the space on the other 2 monitors.

What you say would be true if the FPS dropped to one third when you go to 3 monitors. But it doesn't! My frame rate drops only about 50% from single mon to triple. So I get 3 times the pixels with only a loss of 1/2 the FPS.Gary reported recently that when he went to TH2GO his FPS dropped only slightly- the calculation if I recall, worked out to a 240% gain in number of pixels per sec!! It's the Total Number of Pixels that reach our eyes each second that determines quality. More pixels/sec- more quality. Consider a fire pumper truck- connecting 3 fire hoses will deliver more gallons per minute to the fire than a single hose- even though the pressure (fps) may be lower. In one case the hoses(ie monitors) are connected to the pumper (processor) via video cards- in the other case the connection is the TH2GO device. Field of View isn't part of quality- look into a microscope at a bacillus and the quality is super high with an ultra low field of view. But Field of View is definitely vital when flying an airplane!Cheers Alex Reid CYYJ

I think you're getting image quality mixed up with graphic performance. The things that make up image quality among others are1. Resolution2. Anti Aliasing3. Anisotropic filtering4. Gamma correction 5. brightness6. contrast.It doesn't matter how good your image quality is, if your system performs like a slide show, and vice versa, it doesn't matter how good your performance is, if your image has jaggies, or it displays bad color. So counting megapixels won't tell you how good your image quality is, but is is a good measure for graphic performance.Edit: I display FS with a DLP projector with a native resolution of 1024x768. I changed the resolution to 1920x1080x32 image. which results in a compressed image to 1024x576x32 interlaced at 30hz no less. Not expecting much, as I figured it would be in a blurry shimmering mess due to the lower res and interlacing. To my surprise, I get a very clear and well defined image. So good displayed on my 9 foot screen (Wall), I would put it up against any 1920x1080x32 image on an lcd monitor I've seen. So I think size of the screened image also plays a role in image quality!

Tom- your quote- "It doesn't matter how good your image quality is, if your system performs like a slide show--". Right on- As I said above- "As long as FPS is above persistency of vision- give me lots of pixels". ie no slide show, no stutters! (QUALITY = PIXELS X FPS : if fps = 0, algebra tells us quality= 0)!And sure, there are many other elements that go into Quality- colour vs black and white for example. Perhaps a better expression than quality of image would be Quality of Experience. Your 9 foot screen makes the point exactly!! Even better than triple monitors! On the subject of "slide show", here's something that still surprises me. At night at a major airport, my poor old AMD 1.8 triple mon sys is really hard pressed- and with all the lights from Ultimate Terrain, FPS can drop below 10. Yet the aircraft motion & flight dynamics remain perfectly smooth and fluid! The plane is completely controllable/flyable right down to about 5 FPS!! Below 10, nearby objects such as runway lights, markings, buildings will exhibit a "motion chatter"- the distance covered between each frame is visible- frame to frame. But the plane handles as smoothly as if the FPS was perhaps double! There are NO, repeat NO STUTTERS! Sometimes I wonder if the "real FPS" is much faster than the displayed FPS. Possibly this is related to the phenomenon whereby triple mon/triple (180