as anyone used a large screen LCD TV for flight simming? i.e look at this one 1920 x 1080 resolutionhttp://www.kogan.com.au/shop/kogan-pro-42-...CFQkiagodbmWnFQ

I think you will find FullHD (1920 x 1080 ) screensthat 32" will be about as large as you will need at normalviewing distance. Any larger and you will have to move the monitor away fromyou as you will see the Dots/square pixels.

ok thanks so i think 32 is best for fs, would i see more of the VC or the same as i would say on a 22" but everything only larger?i was aiming at something which will show more of the VC, ie more of the FO cockpit area.

>ok thanks so i think 32 is best for fs, would i see more of>the VC or the same as i would say on a 22" but everything only>larger?>>i was aiming at something which will show more of the VC, ie>more of the FO cockpit area.If you simply unplug a small monitor (17") and plug in a 42", then you have the same picture only bigger. IOW, the field of vision will be the same. However, because everything is bigger, then you can move your eyepoint farther back and indeed see more of the VC and still be able to read the instruments. The downside, as tesmanet said, is that each pixel is larger on that big screen and can be distracting.Before I bought a monitor that size, I'd want to see it connected to a computer and displaying some type graphics-intensive game. Just watching a movie won't tell you if it will display gauges and the small text that you find on some panels to you liking.R-

okso whats the difference with a Dell 30" at 2560 x 1600 and a 32 LCD TV at 1920 x 1080P will the Dell have a larger FOW?

>ok>>so whats the difference with a Dell 30" at 2560 x 1600 and a>32 LCD TV at 1920 x 1080P >>will the Dell have a larger FOW?>>Assuming Dell and the other manufacturer are telling the truth about their native resolutions, then the Dell should have 4,096,000 pixels on its screen (2560 times 1600) and the other one will have only 2,0736,00 pixels (1920 times 1080). Therefore pixels on the Dell will be considerable smaller enabling you to see smaller lettering and details and thus allowing you to move the eyepoint farther back and increasing the field of vision.The viewable field is not determined by monitor size or resolution but rather by where you set the eyepoint within the sim. Higher resolution simply allows you to move the eyepoint farther back while retaining a quality picture. But the result is that the Dell, in your example, should look a lot better up close because of those smaller pixels.R-

i display FS9 on 2 Apple 30" screens; which also has the res of 2560x1600. Make sure that you have a beefy video card which can actually support this res, and also fast enough to display FS9 at this high resolution.The graphics are pretty amazing at this level. As the above poster said, the field of view is the same, but the actual size and resolution is much sharper. The gauges in the 172 for example is almost life size, and reads crystal clear...even if your eyes are only 6 inches from the screen. -feng

yes, i do have the TH2Go, after doing 2 flights on a 22" standalone, then plugging back the three 19" to get an amazing FOV again, i dont think i can go back to a single screen no matter how big it is,3 screens on the TH2Go is 3840 x 1024 nothing comes closebut i would love to get more down screen, i,e the 1024 part into something like 1920, 3840 x 1920 that would be heaven!

I have the HP LP3065c which is 32 inches and has a resolution of 2560 x 1600. It is amazing but as folks have said earlier, you need a pretty beefy video card. My system regularly runs at 15 - 20 fps which is fine for me but I know would drive some folks nuts.I like the lifesize gauges and the realistic spacing between gauges. Forces one to truly scan the instruments.I have not been happy with the increased field of view as your viewpoint has to get pretty far back and you get the "fishbowl" effect. I think multiple monitors might actually better for the increased FOV.

Clayton- As I understand TH2Go, it takes the single 45

No matter how large screen or how many monitors you are still stuck with basic problem - scenery is painted the same distance in front of you as the aircraft panel. Very unrealistic. This is what strikes you first when you sit in a large commercial simulator - you have runway that really extends 10,000 in front of you, this has huge effect on your flying, how you react to situations. Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Michael- Yes, agreed. But imagine being in a commercial simulator and having to view the runway/scenery through a mailing tube! That is, the Field of View being restricted to only 45

>the Field of View being restricted to>only 45

Bryn- yes, agreed re TH2Go best for Virtual. I just never felt Virtual panning and zooming to be natural, so stayed with triple mons, 2D panels + popup gauges opened to replicate a real panel.Re Zoom 0.25- does this not cause difficulty with distance perception?Early in my multi mon experiments, I played with Zoom but had serious difficulty in smooth visual approaches if Zoom OUT was more than 0.90(Max 2D Zoom seems to be about 106

Hi JanuaryYes I am using VC only on the PMDG 747 (boy what an aircraft) anyways, I do prefer TH2GO because it gives you that much more extra