Hello all,I'm currently running an Eyefinity setup. System is listed in my sig, system speed is not an issue, just about everything is at max. My question has to do with video performance in a triple monitor setup (3840 x 1024). I've been flight simming for many years, setting up a system is not an issue. I built this system a couple of months ago at it runs great, locked at 30, stays at 30, except when in moderate to heavy clouds, using ASE. What I'm wondering, would a GTX 580 with Matrox TH2go do any better, significantly better, than my 6970 Eyefinity. I'm not interested in multiple video card options.I know that generally Nvidia cards do better in FSX, but at way more than double the cost, I choose the 6970. You're looking at $500 for a 580, $300 for the TH2go against the $350 I paid for the 6970. If anyone has "real world experience" with a GTX580 and TH2go, you must have both, I would be interested in hearing how it does in clouds. I understand that a 580 probably does better than the 6970, head to head, but what happens when you introduce the TH2go. I don't mind "upgrading" if the performance is real, but it's a lot of money to spend on speculation.Glen

Hello all,I'm currently running an Eyefinity setup. System is listed in my sig, system speed is not an issue, just about everything is at max. My question has to do with video performance in a triple monitor setup (3840 x 1024). I've been flight simming for many years, setting up a system is not an issue. I built this system a couple of months ago at it runs great, locked at 30, stays at 30, except when in moderate to heavy clouds, using ASE. What I'm wondering, would a GTX 580 with Matrox TH2go do any better, significantly better, than my 6970 Eyefinity. I'm not interested in multiple video card options.I know that generally Nvidia cards do better in FSX, but at way more than double the cost, I choose the 6970. You're looking at $500 for a 580, $300 for the TH2go against the $350 I paid for the 6970. If anyone has "real world experience" with a GTX580 and TH2go, you must have both, I would be interested in hearing how it does in clouds. I understand that a 580 probably does better than the 6970, head to head, but what happens when you introduce the TH2go. I don't mind "upgrading" if the performance is real, but it's a lot of money to spend on speculation.Glen

Glen-FWIW, my understanding of TH2Go is that it simply takes the image for a single monitor and then spreads it across three monitors. So the CPU works no harder, hence no impact on frame rate. You get a triple wide Perspective but the FS Field of View is unchanged. I believe many users then apply some zoom out to increase the FoV. (zooming out to 0.50 will double the FS Field of View from standard 45º to 90º. But that also doubles the apparent distance ahead to the runway threshold!)AR

Hi, thanks for responding.Perhaps I need to expand the criteria a bit. Does anyone have a current "high end" Nvidia card and use Th2go that can comment on it's performance in moderate to heavy clouds.I use ASE for weather, cloud layers set to 3, distance at 80 mi in FSX, cloud coverage at max, FEX clouds at 1024 x 1024 dxt. AA set to 4x in Ati CCC. Almost always use the RA Turbine Duke.Whenever I fly through clouds the frame rate will drop from 30 to as low as 5-10, only for a second but still it's annoying. While not in clouds, but surrounded by clouds, the frame rate stays at 30. I suppose I could reduce the textures to say 512 x 512, was hoping this wouldn't be necessary. Do you guys with Nvidia cards and Th2go experience the same, or do your frame rates stay constant?Glen

@Mushkoka, I have access (not my home system) to a NV580 + Th2Go with a [email protected] CPU. We set the FOV as follows (and we use windowed mode NOT Fullscreen mode) - front monitor - Zoom at .33 (note to others who think .5 is correct - it is not) for +-45 degrees FOV and then two side views looking straight sideways - Zoom set at .7 for +-30 Degrees FOV. This gives 210 degrees FOV with a 15 degree gap on either side from 45 to 60 degrees off the nose. If you want different FOV settings, specify them. I don't have REX or ASE though. If you could specify carefully a standard FSX cloud test - provide a FLT file set maybe - I could run a benchmark for you. We tend to get about 40 fps or so in our medium settings with low traffic, dense scenery, normal sutogen. (You would need to specify all those settings - a CFG file maybe). Dave

For clarity, a couple of pics- both same location exactly: R27 Duluth.First shows triple 2D views, all at 1.0 zoomEach view spans the standard 45º. The bezel correction for my specific monitors is 5.5º for each pair. So the outer view angles are each shifted outward by 5.5ºIn total, this arrangement produces a 146º Field of View @ 1.0 zoom.--------For comparison, 2nd pic shows View Forward only but at .35 Zoom to increase FoV.Compare both Fields of View AND the increased "apparent distance" in the second screenshot. Not conducive to accurate distance perception!AR

Guys, again thanks for the responses but the reason for my post has nothing to do with the inner workings of Th2go with respect to FOV.I'm only looking for "performance differences" between an ATI 6970 running Eyefinity at 3840 X 1024 and a high end "single" Nvidia card with Th2go at the same resolution flying through moderate to heavy clouds. Someone must be running Th2go with a high end Nvidia card, no?As an example:My ATI 6970 running at 3840 x 1024 Eyefinity in moderate to heavy clouds with AA set to 4x my frame rates can drop to single digits. At 2x AA they drop to low 20's from locked 30.Your Nvidia GTX ??? running at 3840 x 1024 (or similar) Th2go in moderate to heavy clouds with AA set to 4x your frame rates can drop to ??. At 2x AA they drop to ?? from locked 30.I did lower the resolution of the clouds in FEX to 512 x 512, and at the same time changd my AA setting from 4x to 2x (both with Super Sampling, has to be this or you get shimmering) and the frame rate only drops to low 20's from 30, instead of single digits. Don't really like 2x AA as some jagged edges are visible. Frame Rates are only a number, but when they are single digits it becomes a slide show, not at all acceptable. I do have Bojote's shader mod applied, plus the tweaks, I guess ATI cards are just not very good in clouds with a half decent AA setting, very disappointing. It's a shame, because away from clouds it's very sharp and clear and the performance is great, even at 8x AA with Super Sampling it stays above 20, just don't go near or through any clouds.I'm about ready to switch to an Nvidia card with Th2go, but would sure like to hear from someone with a similar setup on how it performs in clouds with AA set reasonably high.Glen

Guys, again thanks for the responses but the reason for my post has nothing to do with the inner workings of Th2go with respect to FOV.I'm only looking for "performance differences" between an ATI 6970 running Eyefinity at 3840 X 1024 and a high end "single" Nvidia card with Th2go at the same resolution flying through moderate to heavy clouds. Someone must be running Th2go with a high end Nvidia card, no?-----------Glen

Glen- That triple monitor screenshot is not using TH2go but rather is via two video cards- this latter method permitting three different views as opposed to TH2Go, which I believe, spreads a single view across 3 monitors.It is the computation of each view that burns up most of the horsepower.So how Eyefinity performance compares with TH2Go depends primarily on whether EF generates 3 different views in its array or whether it simply uses a single view spread across 3 monitors, as with TH.AR

Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, don't think so though. It seems there is some confusion as to the information I'm seeking.Nvidia doesn't have a triple monitor solution with a single card. For 3 monitors you need 2 cards running Nvidia Surround, correct?, or use Th2go with a single card. I have no interest in running 2 Nvidia cards at a cost of close to $1000.Currently my Eyefinity setup shows 1 widescreen at 3840 x 1024 spread across 3 monitors, it looks great. Zoom is set to 1.00 in Fsx and proportionally everything is as it would be in the real world. Move zoom out to say .7 or .8 and you feel like your 5 ft away from the controls. In Eyefinity all I have to do is create a group with my 3 monitors, go into FSX and select the new resolution, 3840 x 1024, make sure widescreen is "True" in the FSX.cfg and all is great.I don't want 3 separate views, and I never fly with 2d panels, always fly in vc with Trackir 5.Is a single widescreen view 3840 x 1024 not available if I use a single Nvidia card and Th2go with 3 monitors?As far as I know it is, so back to my original question. Is a high end Nvidia card with Th2go better than my Ati 6970 with Eyefinity. What I'm asking has nothing to do with FOV. Not trying to be disrespectful, and yes I do appreciate your responses, but I don't see what they have to do with one setup (Single Nvidia Th2go) and the other (Single Ati 6970 Eyefinity). Performance numbers are what I'm after. Thanks Glen

Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, don't think so though. It seems there is some confusion as to the information I'm seeking.Nvidia doesn't have a triple monitor solution with a single card. For 3 monitors you need 2 cards running Nvidia Surround, correct?, or use Th2go with a single card. I have no interest in running 2 Nvidia cards at a cost of close to $1000.Currently my Eyefinity setup shows 1 widescreen at 3840 x 1024 spread across 3 monitors, it looks great. Zoom is set to 1.00 in Fsx and proportionally everything is as it would be in the real world. Move zoom out to say .7 or .8 and you feel like your 5 ft away from the controls. In Eyefinity all I have to do is create a group with my 3 monitors, go into FSX and select the new resolution, 3840 x 1024, make sure widescreen is "True" in the FSX.cfg and all is great.I don't want 3 separate views, and I never fly with 2d panels, always fly in vc with Trackir 5.Is a single widescreen view 3840 x 1024 not available if I use a single Nvidia card and Th2go with 3 monitors?As far as I know it is, so back to my original question. Is a high end Nvidia card with Th2go better than my Ati 6970 with Eyefinity. What I'm asking has nothing to do with FOV. Not trying to be disrespectful, and yes I do appreciate your responses, but I don't see what they have to do with one setup (Single Nvidia Th2go) and the other (Single Ati 6970 Eyefinity). Performance numbers are what I'm after. Thanks Glen

Glen- somewhere along the way, I got the understanding that the function/purpose/design of EyeFinity was to do the same job as 2 (or more) video cards-ie output multiple images and synch them into one wide image. I have assumed that you also, were displaying three separate view images and I was unaware that EF could also be used to output a single image over three monitors as does TH2Go. The visual results are of course quite different.My apology for misunderstanding the term of reference in your original question.Greetings to Muskoka from Vancouver IslandAR

No problem Alex, no apology necessary. I spent 3 months on the island back in 2003 when I was in training for the Canadian Armed Forces. It was the first time in my life (40+ years) I had spent a good part of the winter in an area that rarely fell below freezing and most days while I was there the temps would be around 10c, that was in Esquimalt. I ended up getting transfered to St. Jean, south of Montreal, and the day I left it was 10c and when we landed in Montreal it was minus 40, man did I want to get on that plane and go back. Now I live in mid central Ontario and still have 2 feet of snow on the ground, oh well, at least it's getting warmer.Glen

Had the gtx285 running fine with TH2G, now 460 gtx with good result (5040x1050), including a large touch screen. Get decent frames and smoothness, the occasional artefact 'cause of highly detailled environment. With a 580 you should be home safe. Don't forget to add trackIR.And the wide view inside a big cockpit is just phenomenal. Bjorn

Glen-FWIW, my understanding of TH2Go is that it simply takes the image for a single monitor and then spreads it across three monitors. So the CPU works no harder, hence no impact on frame rate.

When I am flying over Amsterdam ( 3 outside view setup with TH2Go ) with UTX enabled and Water effects 2x my fps are much lower than when using just 1 monitor.....When using 3 outside view monitors the FOV is much wider and therefore much more detail has to be shown.

When I am flying over Amsterdam ( 3 outside view setup with TH2Go ) with UTX enabled and Water effects 2x my fps are much lower than when using just 1 monitor.....When using 3 outside view monitors the FOV is much wider and therefore much more detail has to be shown.

Gerard- are you perhaps using zoom-out to expand the width (& detail) of the view? As I understand TH2Go, it simply takes the single output from the GPU and splits it over three monitors.AR

No, that would leave you with a zoomed in letterbox format or heavily flattened image. They are three screens that show three images, has some impact on frames in my experience, but mamageable.Bjorn

No, that would leave you with a zoomed in letterbox format or heavily flattened image. They are three screens that show three images, has some impact on frames in my experience, but mamageable.Bjorn

Bjorn- Is not the connection to TH2Go, a single output cable directly from the GPU/video card? If so, then I would expect that the TH triple wide view would be the same as that in a single monitor setup- except that tops and bottoms would have to be sheared off to fit the 3X wider TH format. Such shearing would not be noticeable if some zoom out was involved and that might account for a difference in FPS.Assuming that the total image is essentially the same in either case, I'm puzzled as to why there would be any appreciable FPS difference.Or am I missing something?ARAfterthought- If the TH2Go processor (that splits up the single image coming from the GPU) was unable to keep up to an even faster CPU/GPU combination, then yes, I would expect a frame rate reduction- as compared to a single monitor display. The Frame Rate, presumably, can be no better than the slowest processor in the chain. AR