Like it says... I'm trying to find out what impact the TripleHead2Go might have on a prospective FSX system.I'm considering a relatively high-end build - either a Nehalem-based rig if FSX-specific reviews are positive, or an overclocked Q9650 and (I hope correctly) tuned DDR3 memory.Videocard will probably be a GTX 280 (might go for an 8800 Ultra if they're still findable).Display options I'm considering are:-- 3 22" monitors running off a TripleHead2Go-- 3 19" monitors running off a TripleHead2Go-- A single large monitor (27-30")-- A connection to my existing 24" monitor via a KVM switchThe TripleHead2Go options are attractive for all the obvious reasons. But I just read a comment by Nick N on another forum about the burden that pixel load (especially on the 22" monitors) is likely to put on the CPU. And that reminded me of RESETMCPALT's benchmarks, which if I remember correctly showed a 20-30 percent performance hit for a TripleHead2Go setup.I fly mostly GA - low and slow - but still want to get to a high degree of fluidity, would like to try the occasional glass cockpit, and wouldn't mind getting into Teterboro occasionally or flying the Hudson River corridor without wiping out the system.Also, there's the cost of the TripleHead2Go rig to think about - not the unit by itself but also the three monitors. The other side of the argument is that if I used the existing monitor and the KVM switch, I could put more dollars into the computer itself.What have your experiences been with TripleHead2Go performance? How have you managed the tradeoffs, if any? Finally, would the KVM switch setup have any performance impact that I haven't anticipated?Thanks in advance!Alan

i am using a TH2go on 3 15" monitors ( because i got them for free ) though i used to use a single 32" monitor. the system i am currently using is a Pentium D 820 2.8 Ghz, 2 Gig of 533 Mhz ram, and a 512 MB ATI X1600 card. low and slow i get about 8-15 FPS and some stutters, but i do fly with dense autogen, FEX, UTX, GEX ( in know, no hit from FEX or GEX ) my new rig coming in friday is a Q9550 O/C to 3.4, 4 gig 800 Mhz ram, and a 9800GTX+ card. i can report back later on how that rig handles it as well.even though i dont get he best drame rates right now i have to say the TH2go makes a HUGE difference in the way i fly, especially in traffic patterns. yeah a big monitor makes things big but the field of vison with the TH2go is soooo much better. i highly recommend it.

That's getting close to the kind of system I'm considering - and my budget might push me back toward exactly those specs. So by all means, let me know how it works for you.I use all the enhancements you mention, but keep the autogen toned down to normal or below. Right now I'm on a Core2Duo x6800 at 2.93 Mhz and 4 megs of DDR2-667 memory (my last Dell - won't do that again). I'm able to get upwards of 30 FPS in most rural areas and can hold at 15 in many urban areas, as long as I don't strain the system with add-on aircraft (defaults, RealAir and Carenado work, the old Eaglesoft Cirruses are fine 'til I turn on the avionics). That's using the 24" monitor I mentioned. Goal is to get a little more FPS overhead, and a smoother, better display throughout. If I can get there on the TripleHead, that's great - and you make the effect sound really appealing. But if using it brings me back to where I am now, or below, then I'll probalby have to pass. Would like to do it, so for that reason too I hope yours works out. Alan

Alan, give me a couple of days to get it up and running. the company that i got the computer from is pre-installing FSX gold for me and i have to go in and add all the add on's, run them one at a time and defrag in between. i am sure the system will be fine but i can tell you for sure the TH2GO was well worth the $$, even for when i am not using FSX, just regular programs too.

Alan- once you've flown with triple monitors and a wide horizon you will never accept less.If you prefer Virtual, TH2Go looks to be ideal. While it displays only View Forward across the 3 monitors- with Zoom Out you can increase the Field of View from 45

Nice rig.I fly virtual, so if I go the wide horizon route, it'll be through TH2Go.Am not sure I totally buy your performance math - to me, performance is speed + smoothness, primarily... though I have to admit resolution comes into it. Wouldn't want a smooth, fast 640x480. But on the other hand, don't want to wind up with a high-resolution wide-horizon slideshow.I guess I'd be OK if I was able to get the wide horizon, and somewhat better frames in challenging areas, and overhead for complex GA aircraft... all at something close to my current settings, which are middle-of-the-road (most sliders center or center-right). Don't need to load up autogen or traffic. A better version of my current experience, in other words, but not necessarily a massive breakthrough.And how much is that worth?Ah, that's where the numbers really get crunched...Alan

No rush. Since I'm stil considering Nehalem, I've got a month (or two or three) to wait. Good luck with the setup and I hope it gets you what you need.Alan

"----Am not sure I totally buy your performance math - to me, performance is speed + smoothness, primarily... though I have to admit resolution comes into it."--------Hi Alan- This rig has some performance oddities- I can detect NO performance/quality difference between triple mon/views @ 16-18 FPS and a same single mon/view showing 40-45 FPS. The flows of images look identical to my old eyes. (Being of suspicious mind- I have tried this experiment quite a few times! Set up a triple mon flight- brakes on, wating for T/O, then kill everything on the outer mons to check FPS each way and compare visual quality.)When in complex scenery- (ie a night landing at KLAX), the FPS may dip below 12-14, and you can see some "chattering" on nearby objects- such as runway lights flashing past the wingtips while more distant objects remain very smooth. And the overall motion is eminently smooth and flyable. This is true right down to 6-7 FPS where the chattering becomes more extensive- but the bird is still absolutely flyable! Below 6, everything goes kaput! If you multiply 6 x 150% you get 15- the usual threshold of flyability!!!!!!!!!!Again, the visual performance in these extreme situations appears to be much higher than the displayed frame rate- about the 150% I mentioned previously as the gain in pixel output. That would be consistent with flyability as low as 6- ie 6x150%= 15FPS. Not great but flyable!It's strange stuff like this that convinces me there is untapped potential in our 'puters- just waiting to be unleashed with additional monitors (and a second GPU)!!!! Imagine what I could do with a newer machine than this old 1.8 relic!Alex Reid

That's really interesting. Is it possible that the FPS measurement itself changes on your three-monitor setup? Your single-monitor FPS figure is (roughly) triple the figure for the three-monitor rig. I can't imagine a 2/3 reduction in frames being that hard to notice. But I don't doubt what your eyes are seeing. Do you think the triple-monitor figure is - for some reason - reading at 1/3 of the actual FPS?Alan

Alan- yes, I've long wondered if the FPS calc changes as you add views/monitors. Certainly what my eyes see, appears to have a much higher frame rate than the displayed red FPS number. However, folks who know a lot more about computers than me, say not true- FPS is the rate at which a pic is generated at the processor and has nothing to do with number of monitors or video cards.I'm not so sure. If a mother hawk has 3 chicks to feed, she can regurgitate the field mouse faster than if there was only one chick looking for next bite!Here are a couple of non computer situations to illustrate what I suspect is happening-1. The pumper fire truck has just coupled #1 hose to the manifold and opens the valve- lots of pressure on the manifold gauge and the crowd cheers the firemen as a single high pressure stream of water arcs thru the air!The platoon chief now orders 2 more hose lines connected to the manifold. Soon 3 streams of water are directed onto the fire. The manifold water pressure drops accordingly but now the crowd sees apparently 3 times as much water going onto the fire. There will be more water BUT not 3 times as much because the pressure is reduced! Yet nothing has changed on the truck- engine revs same- just more water thru more hoses! (read video cards for hoses)2. You are standing on a beautiful ocean beach looking out to sea. Your eyes see nothing but sparkling water in a 180

Interesting thoughts. I agree that numbers aren't the whole story and there's a subjective element to performance - I was a bit resistant to that idea at first but after reading through the many Nick N threads it makes sense to me (I've got some experience with high-end audio and that analogy helped, too). You make an excellent case for widescreen.Now I have to get back to the numbers and see if I can afford what it'll take to feed this thing...Alan

"----Now I have to get back to the numbers and see if I can afford what it'll take to feed this thing..."---------------Your GPU will likely drive two monitors nicely. A second and lesser/older GPU will suffice for the third or even 4th mon- of course it should be compatible with your main GPU.I use 2, 8 year old 19"CRTs and a more recent 17"LCD. Can't tell 'em apart after a little colour balancing. All same size LCDs would be nice to minimize bezel separation and simplify some of the Panel Config adjustments. Regardless, there is a straight forward setting to precisely adjust for bezels of ANY combination of widths.(CRTs are usually free these days!)That's all you need.Alex Reid

Good to know - I'll let you know where I come out.Alan

I have been running a digital TH2Go for about 6 months (i had an analog one before).. I am running 3 X Sony 17" Monitors at 3840x1026 through a Nvidia 8800GTX card. My CPU is an E8400 overclocked to 4006.0 Mhz and I have to say in FS9 my performance is blistering... On the runway at KSFO (fly tampa) in PMDG 747-400 with Active Sky + Track IR + UT and at 50% Traffic I usually get around 30-38 FPS solid all the time and I am not sure how much the TH2Go is impacting but I have to say it is the BEST thing that has happened to my flight sim experience after Track IR and of course all the wonderfull addons......Highly recommended...Hamish

Sounds like great performance. Have you tried it in FSX? Your rig is getting close to what I'm considering, so FSX figures would be relevant. I run FS9, too, and it sounds like I won't have anything to worry about on that front...Alan