My flight simming setup includes one screen, head tracking, a fresnel lens, and 3D glasses. For me, this beats a vanilla "triple-view" setup hands down.However, as a courtesy to all those who are enjoying their own setups, I will not try to convince you that my way is better than yours. Happy flying!

The effect is so pronounced that I'm inclined to not worry about enhanced mesh!Alex Reid

Alex try this test. Download this file: sebclod9.zip at Flightsim.com (Avsim no longer has it after the hack).This file contains mesh for the Canadian Rockies by Holger Sandmann. It's very simple to install and remove (manual install).Before enabling this mesh, start out in CYYC and then slew towards CYVR at around 30,000 feet and note the default rounded mountains.Then enable Holgers Canadian Rockies Mesh and start in CYYC and slew again to CYVR and note the huge difference in mountain shape.RJ

Yes I understand, mad dog: much like building model train scenery with either coarse hardware cloth vs fine fly screen. But presumably the mesh could be no finer than 1 pixel. I have all along assumed that 1 pixel WAS the size of the default scenery mesh.For fun, I flew out of Innsbruck to replicate the Abacus screen shots in the website you noted. I found considerably more detail than their default scenery but a fair bit less than their mesh enhanced scenery. As I would expect since I have GE adding detail in my views.A surprise was that my FS default mountains in British Columbia seem to be just as craggy and in similar detail to the mesh enhanced mountains at Innsbruck. Would GE make this difference? Is there a difference in FS default mesh between BC and Europe?Seeing the Innsbruck enhanced mesh mountains leaves me pretty happy to stay as is!--------------------One interesting sidelight is this experiment: Flying along between mountains near Squamish BC: the mountain scenery, with integrated triple views, is quite spectacular and detailed. After 3 or 4 minutes, suddenly turn off the power to the outer mons/views and revert instantly to single View Fwd. The quality of the scenery diminishes - not nearly as appealing and seems to have less detail. I assume this is because the eyes are now narrowly focused and are detecting the scenery mesh gaps. With triple views and pixels, the eyes and brain fail to see the coarseness of the default mesh. Something like staring at the wide, dark sky and not being able to spot Polaris! The effect is so pronounced that I'm inclined to not worry about enhanced mesh!Alex Reid

Hello Alex I still get the feeling that you are missing the point of meshI does not matter how many monitors you have, the height of the terrain vs real life is what we are discussing.If by default FS9 shows a 6000 ft peak as a low rounded hill your 3 monitors will not convert it back into a 6000 ft peak.What you are seeing with the default terrain is some way short of what is there in real life.Good mesh will fix this, and can be found for free.And it is nothing to do with pixels, the best resolution ground textures that FS9 can display is 4.75 meters per pixelAnd mesh is nothing to do with pixels.The normal FS9 mesh resolution underneath these ground textures in sampled at 1200 meters distance apart.Any terrain undulations or peaks and crags inside that 1200 meters will not be displayed (no matter how many monitors)76 meter mesh will display anything withing 76 meters between the sampling points38 meter mesh will show even more detail.Alex if you are happy that the world you are seeing is full of rounded hills, then fine enjoy what you have.But we are trying to help you get an even better image which represents the real world much better.

January, it sounds to me like you have a fundamental confusion about how this all works (which sort of explains that other thread where you indicated not needing HD ground textures actually). The resolution you have your monitor set to display at has nothing to do with the resolution of the "stuff" flightsim is displaying in its "world." With reference to mesh, the term "resolution" refers to the actual number of data points that have been used to determine the elevations of a given area. So, for example in defualt FS the mesh res might be something like 1 point per 300 yards (just random numbers for the sake of example). So FS has to interpolate the areas for which it has no data point and basically just draws a line between the points leading to rounded off peaks and so forth. Higher res mesh might have a data point ratio of 1 point per 30 yards giving it a much higher level of detail. Also, the actual data itself can vary in accuracy so while MS may have used a given data set for its mesh, its very unlikely that it was the best, most accurate data set, leading to some innacuracies when various other elements (rivers for instance) are placed in their correct place in the world. But the point is, you need to forget about the monitor resolution when it comes to the elements within the FS world as that has no bearing other than to give the image a higher display resolution making everything look sharper. FS is a 3D world and scales itself as needed depending on where you are within it. But the data that world is built from doesn't change based on the resolution of your monitors...

However, as a courtesy to all those who are enjoying their own setups, I will not try to convince you that my way is better than yours. Happy flying!

Totally agree. We all have our ideal setups and preferences how we use Flight Sim. If I recall Alex flies mainly VFR in BC and is using very old computer hardware. Heck, I'm still using default mesh (minus the Rockies) and textures because I prefer IFR flight. :( However, when flying at FL350 over the Rockies, I just could not stand seeing hills so I added the mesh for the Rockies.The greater the resolution of mesh you install, the more polygons flight sim needs to draw, hence you could see a reduction in FPS. So in Alex's case, you might just want to stick with the default mesh on your current hardware. First shot is default mesh.Second shot is mesh by Holger Sandmann file name: sebclod9.zip RJ

Totally agree. We all have our ideal setups and preferences how we use Flight Sim. If I recall Alex flies mainly VFR in BC and is using very old computer hardware. Heck, I'm still using default mesh (minus the Rockies) and textures because I prefer IFR flight. :( However, when flying at FL350 over the Rockies, I just could not stand seeing hills so I added the mesh for the Rockies.The greater the resolution of mesh you install, the more polygons flight sim needs to draw, hence you could see a reduction in FPS. So in Alex's case, you might just want to stick with the default mesh on your current hardware. First shot is default mesh.Second shot is mesh by Holger Sandmann file name: sebclod9.zip RJ

lets don't forget though that its not just the increased resolution you get with good add-on mesh. There can also be an increase in accuracy of the data. So even if you get some good mesh and choose to run it at lower detail (which you can do by leaving the mesh setting in fs9.cfg at 19 or 20 instead of 21) you can benefit from more accurate data that could help with the river positioning in valleys and so forth...

Alex: I know what a cheerleader you are on the multi-monitor topic (as well you should be) so FWIW I was recently forced to revert briefly to a single screen mode in order to set up a wing view in my DBS Walk and Follow module -- the only way it works is with single screen. What a shock! I've been flying triple mons for over a year and a half and I have no idea how I ever flew before without triple monitors . . .Chuck

3Green,Zevious,Mad Dog-No question- triple views don't increase scenery detail. What they do however is flood your eyeball receptors with triple the amount of data/pixels. Since there are a fixed number of eye receptors, you then fail to notice the gaps and imperfections and the scene looks pretty darn good. Same principle when you cant see that airplane in the sky until you squint, thus narrowing your field of vision.-------My mountains are craggy and rocky- they are not lumps. Attached one last pic to compare. This is FS9 default. Knowing this area in real life, I can say that the full 3 mon wide pic is quite representative. But to fully appreciate, you must see this blown up to span your whole peripheral vision- in my case it is 45" wide.Enough said on this subject.Christmas greetings Alex ReidBC Coast Mountains up close and dangerous. Much detail is lost in the size reduction to meet AVSIM specs.

3Green,Zevious,Mad Dog-No question- triple views don't increase scenery detail. What they do however is flood your eyeball receptors with triple the amount of data/pixels. Since there are a fixed number of eye receptors, you then fail to notice the gaps and imperfections and the scene looks pretty darn good. Same principle when you cant see that airplane in the sky until you squint, thus narrowing your field of vision.-------My mountains are craggy and rocky- they are not lumps. Attached one last pic to compare. This is FS9 default. Knowing this area in real life, I can say that the full 3 mon wide pic is quite representative. But to fully appreciate, you must see this blown up to span your whole peripheral vision- in my case it is 45" wide.Enough said on this subject.Christmas greetings Alex ReidBC Coast Mountains up close and dangerous. Much detail is lost in the size reduction to meet AVSIM specs.

:( OK fine then. All us guys (including almost everyone whose used FS for the past decade or so) are wrong about the positive impact good mesh has on the sim and you and your 3 monitors are right. I'm not going to debate this stuff with you. You've got some (to me quite funny - "flooding a fixed number of eyeball receptors"?? :( ) perspectives on things and I don't think I can change those.enjoy.

Alex: I know what a cheerleader you are on the multi-monitor topic (as well you should be) so FWIW I was recently forced to revert briefly to a single screen mode in order to set up a wing view in my DBS Walk and Follow module -- the only way it works is with single screen. What a shock! I've been flying triple mons for over a year and a half and I have no idea how I ever flew before without triple monitors . . .Chuck

Hi Trelane- nice to hear from someone who has actually flown with multi views rather than just theorizing as to why it is no better than single view.Their loss!Merry Christmas Alex Reid

Hi Trelane- nice to hear from someone who has actually flown with multi views rather than just theorizing as to why it is no better than single view.Their loss!Merry Christmas Alex Reid

When has anyone said its "no better" than single views? I certainly haven't ever said that. I fully believe its better in some ways. Just not necessarily for the reasons you suggest. The issues you are suggesting triple mon setups resolve have little or nothing to do with the number of monitors one uses, thats all I'm saying. You view things on three monitors at 3000x800 res (approx). I view things on one widescreen monitor at 1680x1050 res. Both of us will benefit from better than defualt mesh. You yourself asked how to resolve the rivers running oddly along mountainsides and I've told you how to do so - apparently having three monitors doesn't resolve that particular issue does it?

:( OK fine then. All us guys (including almost everyone whose used FS for the past decade or so) are wrong about the positive impact good mesh has on the sim and you and your 3 monitors are right. I'm not going to debate this stuff with you. You've got some (to me quite funny - "flooding a fixed number of eyeball receptors"?? :( ) perspectives on things and I don't think I can change those.enjoy.

Zevious- The retina of the eye has a fixed number of receptors that send the "picture" to the brain. Increase the physical size of the "picture", and each receptor is "responsible" for a bigger portion of the overall "picture". That's why we have to squint so as to concentrate those receptors onto a very small area when viewing a single FS view. (The human eye likes to have a wide "picture"- a narrow pic such as a single monitor, forces the eye to concentrate or focus very narrowly- sometimes leading to "eye strain".)------------------Look at a chart with a magnifying glass and there is much detail- IN A VERY SMALL SPACE- like a single FS view.But without the mag glass, you see a very big chart- like a 3 times wider sim view- but now the detail is lost. Since the detail cannot now be seen, it makes no difference whether or not the chart has or does not have a high level of detail. Similarly, when I'm looking at a triple wide FS view, higher resolution mesh simply won't be of much value - in contrast to viewing a small single mon view where HD mesh IS valuable. Single mon simming is like looking at the world through a magnifying glass- you need max detail.Hope that helps explain.Alex Reid

Hi Trelane- nice to hear from someone who has actually flown with multi views rather than just theorizing as to why it is no better than single view.Their loss!Merry Christmas Alex Reid

I only have one monitor :( Note the mesh :( RJ

I only have one monitor :( Note the mesh :( RJ

Note that I'm flying with TRIPLE VIEWS integrated into one wide view. If you had a monitor this wide, why wouldn't you display triple views on it so as to have a single 135

RJ: AWESOME!Alex, old friend: You need custom terrain mesh. Period. Your basic theory assumes a one to one ratio between optical receptors and Flight Sim. Your eye has BILLIONS of receptors, your brain has more -- hardly a match for poor Flight Sim, or your monitors . . . :( FS Default mesh is OK, but it's not accurate, it's flat and it's nothing compared to what custom mesh will do for your flights. But your scientific theories are fundamentally flawed and I don't want to get into why here, just know that custom terrain mesh is better -- much, much better -- than the default.(I'm not an optometric physician but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. :-D )