I know you are happy with your multi-view setup and that's great. I still don't think this is a recommended solution for someone with modern hardware who wants a good multi-monitor high resolution setup in FSX, which is what the OP is asking about. I have used the multi-view setup, and also eyefinity/surround mode. You simply can't compare them. It would be like ignoring five years of hardware development.There really is no such thing as "there is only one CPU so only one monitor is updated while the other ones are frozen", although one might get this impression at really low framerates.Depending how you define "a CPU", the operating system usually has four or eight of them to play with these days. This still has nothing to do with the update/freeze statement though as this is not how it works.

I know you are happy with your multi-view setup and that's great. I still don't think this is a recommended solution for someone with modern hardware who wants a good multi-monitor high resolution setup in FSX, which is what the OP is asking about. I have used the multi-view setup, and also eyefinity/surround mode. You simply can't compare them. It would be like ignoring five years of hardware development.There really is no such thing as "there is only one CPU so only one monitor is updated while the other ones are frozen", although one might get this impression at really low framerates.Depending how you define "a CPU", the operating system usually has four or eight of them to play with these days. This still has nothing to do with the update/freeze statement though as this is not how it works.

You are saying that the 3 separate views are all being recomputed & updated simultaneously?If so, I am really puzzled as to why 20 fps with 3 monitors/views has the apparent same visual quality as 40 fps on a single monitor. Here is the test-Flying along nicely with triple views. Now suddenly kill/delete the outer views (not the monitors but the actual views LF & RF). There is NO quality difference detectable with only one view being updated & displayed - even at twice the frame rate for triple mons.This test so surprised me that I have repeated it many times to be sure I'm not delusional! Only explanation I can see is that which I described - 2 views being stopped/frozen momentarily while the pixels in the third are being rearranged.But you won't get this visual "single pic" smoothness unless you shift (sideways) the angle of the outer views to precisely correspond to the bezel widths. It is a simple math computation- I do this to an accuracy of 1/100 of a degree. I'm not aware of any other system that can achieve this degree of multi image blending across multiple monitors.I have seen this done also in FSX and it looks pretty good!AR

It looks like the best way to use what I have is to buy another GTX580 and use NVsurround to run my three existing monitors, at 1920 x 1200, with the big 30 incher in the middle. Do you agree? Cheers, mark

It looks like the best way to use what I have is to buy another GTX580 and use NVsurround to run my three existing monitors, at 1920 x 1200, with the big 30 incher in the middle. Do you agree? Cheers, mark

I have two 580s in SLI doing the triple head setup at 5040 x 1050, it's really nice. I don't think nvsurround will let you run different resolution monitors tho'Eyefinity also works well, but ATI cards don't run FSX well. I have *heard* that you can get eyefinity working with different resolution monitors meaning if you went the eyefinity route you may not need to get any new monitors. (read up on it at the widescreen gaming forum)Also with those monitors you will be pushing a lot of pixels, so you make sure you have plenty of V-ram on the cards. Like a 2gb 5870 or something like that.

Hi,I do not run in windowed mode, I use full screen with a VC.

Mike,do you use Windowed mode ?I understood that with multiple graphics cards the fps will drop, like when using undocked views... My setup uses 3 26" outside view monitors and I was thinking about adding another one, but do not want the fps drop to much.

It looks like the best way to use what I have is to buy another GTX580 and use NVsurround to run my three existing monitors, at 1920 x 1200, with the big 30 incher in the middle. Do you agree? Cheers, mark

Mark - I think there may be a problem with displaying views across monitors of quite different sizes. That is, objects will have a larger physical size on a bigger monitor. So, for example, a hangar that is straddling two monitors of different sizes will look somewhat odd.It would be possible to use some Zoom out or in, to make all the images same size- but then you are altering the Field of View, and obtaining precisely matched scenery joinings between monitors would be very difficult.I have long used 2 17" LCDs on either side of a 19" CRT. (The LCD frames/bezels were placed in front of the very old and wide CRT frame to achieve the equivalent of all three having narrow bezels.) Even with this small (17" vs 19") size variation, the scenery/object size difference was detectable. So I did use a very small amount of zoom to compensate. (Which then led to some trial and error to find a readjusted value for the display angle of the outer views!)But a major difference in monitor sizes would, I believe, detract from a good outcome.ARPS- with a bit of colour balancing, I can detect no real differences between the 2 different make LCDs & the ancient CRT!

"ATI cards don't run FSX well" is a generalization that's not really fair. There have been some ATI-specific problems with shimmering textures, bad performance in clouds, and semi-broken vsync etc. I assume you're refering to those? All those issues have known,simple fixes. I'm not going to start another ATI vs Nvidia discussion though. I have used both Nvidia surround mode and Eyefinity, and seriously, there is not that much of a difference as both actually works pretty great and run high resolutions with excellent performance when FSX is configured correctly.

Hi,Why are you running a TH2Go with dual video boards?. How many monitors are you running?. Do the monitor's native resolution match the TH2Go at 1050 or do the monitors support 1200?.

I have two 580s in SLI doing the triple head setup at 5040 x 1050, it's really nice. I don't think nvsurround will let you run different resolution monitors tho'Eyefinity also works well, but ATI cards don't run FSX well. I have *heard* that you can get eyefinity working with different resolution monitors meaning if you went the eyefinity route you may not need to get any new monitors. (read up on it at the widescreen gaming forum)Also with those monitors you will be pushing a lot of pixels, so you make sure you have plenty of V-ram on the cards. Like a 2gb 5870 or something like that.

@ Mike: I am not using a TH2Go, I meant I have a "triple-head" setup meaning 3 monitors using NVsurround.@ Tolip2: Over the last 12 months I have had a 5870 2gb, dual 5870s in Crossfire, and a 5970 (I know crazy right?), and simply put the cards do not perform as well for FSX as Nvidia cards, with Shader mod 3.0 and whatever other tweaks etc... I will say that the eyefinity was very well implemented, but the image quality is not a good as the nvidia offerings. Even with the shader mods, the clouds dropped frames in heavy clouds. Also you can't use supersampling AA(which is a problem when you are trying to read the GPS).

Well, my extra GTX580 and monitor should arrive today, I was wondering about the connections, 2 monitors on one card and one on the other? Does the surround driver, just detect and adjust accordingly? Will report back as soon as I have it all set up.....cheers, Mark

Nvidia has all the info you need, http://www.nvidia.co...technology.html is a good start.The setup should be pretty straightforward. Just remember to connect the cards with an SLI cable.

@tolip2 You are one of the very few that are using a highend CPU (I suppose) and NVSurround (dual SLI) with FSX. Could you please provide some more detail in terms of performance - maybe FSMark07 (Global High) and include a comparison from the performance with a single monitor versus the three monitors. Do you operate the monitors as three separate, independent views - that is can you set the side views to be be noncontiguous with the front? We are using a very large screen for the center view but set the field of view (via Zoom factor) to +-45 degrees (Zoom=.33) and then set the side views at directly sideways +-30 (Zoom=.7) degrees using the Matrox Th2Go but would like to try using two 580s instead. Thanks for any details!

@tolip2 You are one of the very few that are using a highend CPU (I suppose) and NVSurround (dual SLI) with FSX. Could you please provide some more detail in terms of performance - maybe FSMark07 (Global High) and include a comparison from the performance with a single monitor versus the three monitors. Do you operate the monitors as three separate, independent views - that is can you set the side views to be be noncontiguous with the front? We are using a very large screen for the center view but set the field of view (via Zoom factor) to +-45 degrees (Zoom=.33) and then set the side views at directly sideways +-30 (Zoom=.7) degrees using the Matrox Th2Go but would like to try using two 580s instead. Thanks for any details!

whitav8- I'm puzzled when you mention setting "field of view to +- 45º via Zooming to .33 ". The views in FS9 & I'm pretty sure in FSX, are EACH 45º in width @ zoom 1.0. Eight views in total = 360º, the full circle.If you zoom out to .33, the math says the FoV would be 45/.33 or 136º.Incidentally when zoom is used (Out or In), the apparent distance ahead is altered- exactly in the same way as with a telescope. Used conventionally, a telescope zooms IN and the apparent distance to any object becomes much closer & FOV narrows.Look thru' the wrong end- you are zooming out and the apparent distance seems much greater- & FOV increases.Since the simulator RATE (time) doesn't change, the pilot may be in for a surprise on a "zoomed out" approach to an airport! The distance seems to be double but time remains constant- so the plane appears to be going twice as fast as before, and the pilot may be tempted to slow down if (s)he is not watching the airspeed closely. To compensate, if .5 Zoom Out was in use, then Rate should also be slowed to .5 to preserve the illusion of a constant speed!In a previous comment I noted that displaying three different views really needs monitors of relatively similar size to avoid these side effects. But it is possible to display 3 different views on a single very large screen. In which case there is no need for bezel correction. Attached is a pic of 3 views on a single monitor- in this case a 19" CRT- so way too small to be practical! (The double windscreen post is caused by ALSO displaying the First Officer's panel!) But a 40-50" screen would be interesting! (Black squares are unused mons #2/3 for this experiment.)AR