This is for january, I am either totaly confused, or not to bright. Are you telling us you can get three views in FSX as you show, without any matrox unit. if this is so, please show us how?. I have been unable to get any Right or left outside views in FSX. I am using two 22 inch and one 25 inch monitors. two video cards. I have no problem moving windowes from one monitor to the other, no outside views. thanks.

Hi JimSorry for the delayed response. Here's a screenshot of the PMDG JS4100 on TH2go. Most VC users use TrackIR, so you can 'move in' to see the instruments better as needed. This PMDG aircraft's VC is a work of art, and stays sharp even at close range.Here's what it actually looks like on my screens. Note that my side screens are angled back, as I normally use them for outside scenery only, and the wrap around of the screens looks correct...in fact, it mimicks the flight deck windows of an airplane like an MD-80. Some users have all three screens flat, in the same plane (not "airplane"). The photo is also taken with a wide angle lens.Here's an alternate method using 2 3D windows - the 'main' FSX window, with the main VC view and panel, is spread across the DH2go screens below (2880x900), and an extra 3D outside view is spread across the TH2go screens. This opens up the outside viewing, and also allows the lower screen(s) real estate to be dedicated to just the panel views. TrackIR is keyed to the lower screen, so a person can still 'look around' the flight deck.Another advantage for me, is that my lower screens are touch screens, allowing me to manipulate various controls without the mouse.There is a framerate hit from adding the second 3D window. It's flyable, but not nearly as smooth as a single 3D VC window (or airplanes with a collection of 2D panels). I've even created a third 3D window and focused the view on the overhead panel, and moved it to an upper screen I have, which completes the flightdeck. "Slideshow" may be a bit strong, but "stuttering" would surely describe the performance. I didn't enjoy flying it.Note that my computer is long in the tooth, and ripe for upgrade. (C2D [email protected] / 8800GTX / GT9600 / 4Gb / Vista64)I prefer airplanes with 2D panels for my setup. I'm able to see everything I need, and the outside world is unobstructed. But more and more addons are only VC, so I've found ways to make them work on my system. Once I upgrade, I think the 2 3D window setup will work OK.I'm not trying sell anyone on using DH2go...just providing food for thought and another way to skin the cat. FSX is really quite flexible, allowing us to come up with so many ways to view the panels and the outside world. Then throw in all the excellent addons with detailed VC and 2D panels, TrackIR, TH2go, touch screens...Good luck on your multi monitor quest. It is so worth it.Noel W

Hi Noel,Your setup with the 3 on 2 monitors (plus 1 on top for overhead panel) is exactly what I'm striving for. The pics you show look awesome, what size monitors are you using?I like the idea of touchscreen monitors for the instrument monitors, particularly the top overhead screen. I know the frame rate hit would be unbearable for the level of detail I would want to show to get the " as real as is gets" feeling. Have you tried networking another computer using Wideview? Rather than just upgrade your current PC, leave it as it is and invest in a new rig? One to run the outside views and the other for instruments. I know, easy to say but hard on the wallet. Then again if you've come this far when not take it to the next step?Let me know your thoughts.ThanksJim V.

Hi Noel,Your setup with the 3 on 2 monitors (plus 1 on top for overhead panel) is exactly what I'm striving for. The pics you show look awesome, what size monitors are you using?I like the idea of touchscreen monitors for the instrument monitors, particularly the top overhead screen. I know the frame rate hit would be unbearable for the level of detail I would want to show to get the " as real as is gets" feeling. Have you tried networking another computer using Wideview? Rather than just upgrade your current PC, leave it as it is and invest in a new rig? One to run the outside views and the other for instruments. I know, easy to say but hard on the wallet. Then again if you've come this far when not take it to the next step?Let me know your thoughts.ThanksJim V.

Hi JimI did use Wideview for quite a while, with four CPU's. It can be cumbersome to use things like weather and traffic, though there are ways around things. But one thing I could never get rid of, was a slight stuttering in the outside view. The FPS were solid 40, but I could never get the smoothness I like. I finally concluded that is was to do with the position info being sent over a network - the client machines are not really flying, but rather are slewing. So, I went back to TH2go, and for me, it's just much easier to deal with. Not to mention, at upgrade time, I just have to deal with one CPU and not four. I will say, other Wideview users seem quite content, so YMMV as always.Surprisingly, even though the main CPU is driving seven screens (it sees that as four due to the Matrox units), I'm able to retain good FPS and smoothness.Using Wideview for a VC only airplane, to offload the 3D panels would I think, only work for the main panel (which would have to be on the Server CPU). If a person tried to run the Overhead Panel on a client...well...the switches and buttons would have no effect on the main airplane. The only exception that I know of, is the Leonardo Maddog MD-80, where the panels can be networked. I played with it for a while, but things kept getting out of sync (like AI and ND compass), and it ended up being too much trouble. Which circles back around to a certain attraction to keeping it as simple as possible.I do offload some ancilliary items onto a couple of networked machines - FSMap, TouchBuddy, an Approach Plate program, and my various Flight Manuals and checklists.I posted an overview of my setup about a year and half ago here. Let me know if you want to see any of the pics that were originally in that post...they've since disappeared.I used to use a touch screen for the overhead, but found it a bit of a reach, and more tricky to operate the items on the overhead. A 'touch' is a left-click; a 'touch and hold' is a right-click. Unfortunately, PMDG uses a lot of right-click controls...and...I found it was easier to just reach up an use the mouse for the overhead. I used that touch screen in a different location, though if I got another one, I'd stick it overhead. Just nice to have the option. The main panel/Glare Shield Control Panel and MCDU are where most of the action is.The overhead is a 19" 1280x1024.TH2go screens are 3 19" 1280x1024. (Will replace with 22" widescreen 1680x1050.)The outer two, lower screens, are 17" widescreen touch screens 1440x900.The middle two, lower screens, are 19" widescreen touch screens 1440x900.The far right lower screen varies from a 19" to a 22" screen, depending on whichroom in the house I 'borrow it' from. I use it for the moving map.Here's a pic of the current setup.And here's a shot with the MD-80.I just found a shot I'd taken just after the JS4100 came out, where I added a third 3D window with the overhead...this was before adding the DH2go and a second main instrument panel screen.Let me know if you have any questions.Noel W

Hi JimI did use Wideview for quite a while, with four CPU's. It can be cumbersome to use things like weather and traffic, though there are ways around things. But one thing I could never get rid of, was a slight stuttering in the outside view. The FPS were solid 40, but I could never get the smoothness I like. I finally concluded that is was to do with the position info being sent over a network - the client machines are not really flying, but rather are slewing. So, I went back to TH2go, and for me, it's just much easier to deal with. Not to mention, at upgrade time, I just have to deal with one CPU and not four. I will say, other Wideview users seem quite content, so YMMV as always.Surprisingly, even though the main CPU is driving seven screens (it sees that as four due to the Matrox units), I'm able to retain good FPS and smoothness.Using Wideview for a VC only airplane, to offload the 3D panels would I think, only work for the main panel (which would have to be on the Server CPU). If a person tried to run the Overhead Panel on a client...well...the switches and buttons would have no effect on the main airplane. The only exception that I know of, is the Leonardo Maddog MD-80, where the panels can be networked. I played with it for a while, but things kept getting out of sync (like AI and ND compass), and it ended up being too much trouble. Which circles back around to a certain attraction to keeping it as simple as possible.I do offload some ancilliary items onto a couple of networked machines - FSMap, TouchBuddy, an Approach Plate program, and my various Flight Manuals and checklists.I posted an overview of my setup about a year and half ago here. Let me know if you want to see any of the pics that were originally in that post...they've since disappeared.I used to use a touch screen for the overhead, but found it a bit of a reach, and more tricky to operate the items on the overhead. A 'touch' is a left-click; a 'touch and hold' is a right-click. Unfortunately, PMDG uses a lot of right-click controls...and...I found it was easier to just reach up an use the mouse for the overhead. I used that touch screen in a different location, though if I got another one, I'd stick it overhead. Just nice to have the option. The main panel/Glare Shield Control Panel and MCDU are where most of the action is.The overhead is a 19" 1280x1024.TH2go screens are 3 19" 1280x1024. (Will replace with 22" widescreen 1680x1050.)The outer two, lower screens, are 17" widescreen touch screens 1440x900.The middle two, lower screens, are 19" widescreen touch screens 1440x900.The far right lower screen varies from a 19" to a 22" screen, depending on whichroom in the house I 'borrow it' from. I use it for the moving map.Here's a pic of the current setup.And here's a shot with the MD-80.I just found a shot I'd taken just after the JS4100 came out, where I added a third 3D window with the overhead...this was before adding the DH2go and a second main instrument panel screen.Let me know if you have any questions.Noel W

Excellent pics Noel and thanks for the link to the previous post with lots of good info. I had no idea that when using Wideview the client PC could not handle aircraft control panels, although that does make sense. So I will have to rethink my setup a bit. The goal for me is to run the most complex and hopefully real scenery in wide format with 3 on 2 monitors as you show, all in VC. I think this would give the most realistic flight experience. I'm surprised you don't have a flight yoke to complete your setup?Also I would love to the pics that where in that previous post. ThanksJim V.

I'm surprised you don't have a flight yoke to complete your setup?Jim, I had a CH Yoke in the past, but it wasn't very precise. I'll bet there are better ones out there these days. Also I would love to the pics that where in that previous post. I'll send you a PM; goodness knows this post has enough photos already.Best Regards,Noel

This is for january, I am either totaly confused, or not to bright. Are you telling us you can get three views in FSX as you show, without any matrox unit. if this is so, please show us how?. I have been unable to get any Right or left outside views in FSX. I am using two 22 inch and one 25 inch monitors. two video cards. I have no problem moving windowes from one monitor to the other, no outside views. thanks.

Yes you can, January explained it earlier in this thread and in more detail in other similar threads I think. However, personally I higly disagree with his performance/FPS experience, and the "only one CPU" / screen update argument is not quite true. For each new view you create in FSX, there is a huge performance overhead. FSX is an old software that is bad at utilizing the hardware in the first place and when using multiple views within FSX you really make things even worse. This is a terrible waste of hardware resources. With recent techologies like ATI Eyefininty and Nvidia surround gaming mode, you can actually put your new hardware to pretty good use - not primarily to boost FSX in the traditional sense but to be able to use multiple hires screens with virtually no performance penalty at all. It does however cost quite a bit of money of course.It also depends a lot on how you fly. If you ride around with the default ultralight or cessna at 200 FPS, creating multiple views within FSX is not going to be a problem. If you're at 50 FPS to begin with and 20 FPS after creating multiple views, it will make you cry.I've been evaulating several different multi-monitor solutions (for the outside view) for some time, like Wideview, Triplehead2go digital, multiple views within FSX, Eyefinity, and Nvidia surround mode (not 3d). I'm planning to write something about my experience and the pros and cons of each solution when I have time.

I've been evaulating several different multi-monitor solutions (for the outside view) for some time, like Wideview, Triplehead2go digital, multiple views within FSX, Eyefinity, and Nvidia surround mode (not 3d). I'm planning to write something about my experience and the pros and cons of each solution when I have time.

Tolip2I'm trying to determine the best upgrade path as well, and have spent some time on the Widescreen Gaming and nVidia forums. As always, results are somewhat mixed. FSX is my main focus, and though there seem to be quite a few of 'us' out here still, we're nowhere near the numbers of Crysis etc. enthusiasts. That makes FSX specific info on other, graphics centric websites slim.So, I for one am keenly interested in what you've found out about the various wideview solutions for FSX.Thanks in advance.Noel W

<!--quoteo(post=1805426:date=Aug 4 2010, 10:44 AM:name=rudder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rudder @ Aug 4 2010, 10:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805426"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotecQuote- "Yes you can, January explained it earlier in this thread and in more detail in other similar threads I think. However, personally I higly disagree with his performance/FPS experience, and the "only one CPU" / screen update argument is not quite true.-----"-----------------------------tolip2- My comments on performance related to what the eye/brain combo sees when the outer views are adjusted or shifted to take into account the width of the bezels separating them. (This correction needs to be done to 1/10 of a degree to be really effective- I do it to 1/100º) Of course the computer does work harder with multiple views- and the FPS drops, in my case by 50%- on a machine that is now going on 7 years old. But a carefully unified triple view will remain very smooth as long as frame rate remains above the magic 15-16 fps. The main reason for my wanting a rate higher is simply to ensure it doesn't go below 15 when the airplane motion becomes rapid relative to scenery- ie landings & rapid manoeuvers. With only one CPU, only one view image can be recomputing at any moment - two images are always frozen. So 2/3 of the whole is always perfectly stable while 1/3 has changes occuring. (I use 2 video cards, not TH2Go) Given the wide panorama- a 45" wide combined (& wrapped around) screen occupying my entire peripheral vision- my eyes probably miss some of the pixel changes that are occuring on 1/3 of the whole. When you have only a narrow FOV, the brain can more readily spot anomalies. A wide view tends to make the brain less discerning of fine detail. That's why we squint or cup our eyes to try to locate that drowning swimmer whom we can hear but can't locate!In effect a triple wide view mimics natural relaxed vision- while a single monitor is more like squinting.That's why a pilot may not see an oncoming plane- until ATC tells him where to look or concentrate his vision.So that's why I'm satisfied to run at low FPS as a result of displaying triple views and it also means that the lesser low/slow scenery detail in FS9 is not really significant as compared to FX.Alex Reid