Jim, you were spot on! Changing to .333 and 1.000 fixed the issue. Overhead pops into place perfectly and no FPS drop. So that was it! THANKS!!

I'm not sure if the same holds true for TripleHead2Go...

Yes, thanks for this Jim. I too am a TripleHead2Go user and this information helps greatly. I prefer full screen when using my triples of course, and I would normally have to resize all my 2D windows before going into full screen or I would get a windows is thinking circle and my fps would drop to low single digits. The only to fix it was restart fsx. This will save me so much time on my forgetful flights (which is more often than not).

Jim, you were spot on! Changing to .333 and 1.000 fixed the issue. Overhead pops into place perfectly and no FPS drop. So that was it! THANKS!!

Yes, thanks for this Jim. I too am a TripleHead2Go user and this information helps greatly. I prefer full screen when using my triples of course, and I would normally have to resize all my 2D windows before going into full screen or I would get a windows is thinking circle and my fps would drop to low single digits. The only to fix it was restart fsx. This will save me so much time on my forgetful flights (which is more often than not).

Glad I could help. When dealing with a 3 screen setup you are going to find this a very common problem on every aircraft that uses 2d panels.By altering the "window size" you can make the panel any size you want.By adding another line called "window_pos" you can position that window anywhere you want within the 3 screens.As always, back up the original panel.cfg and then you are free to play around with both of these lines to your hearts content.I always keep the original line and just add // to the beginning so I always know where I started from.Then below it copy and paste that line again this time without the // as seen below. Anything with the double // gets ignored.[Window05]file_1024=PMDG_NGX_OVHD_Wide.bmpsize_mm=1920,1200//window_size= 1.000, 1.000 <<Add // so this line is ignored>>window_size= .333, 1.000 <<first # is width, second # is height>>//position=0 <<Add // so this line is ignored>> window_pos= 0.330, 0.000 << first # is how far from the left edge of the far left screen, second # is how far from the top>>visible=0ident=405zorder=85It can be a daunting task but also very rewarding to have the panels open properly sized and exactly where you want them to.Just remember the 1/3 rule. Each screen is 1/3 of the overall picture.window_pos= .000, will start on the far left edge of the left screen.window_pos= .333, will start about the far left edge of the middle screen.window_pos= .666, will start about the far left edge of the right screen.After making any changes, save the cfg file and reload the aircraft to see the effects.Give it a try sometime. If you're like me, it's enjoyable, rewarding and all part of the hobby to tinker with stuff like this.

can you maybe tip me on the same for the CDU window when I am running on two screens? (not in Eyefinity mode).

can you maybe tip me on the same for the CDU window when I am running on two screens? (not in Eyefinity mode).

To me it sounds like you are using one monitor as the main view and the second is set-up as an "extended desktop".That's a whole different ballgame and I will try to help you but your situation could very well result in a frame rate hit.I do understand what you are trying to do because I run 3 screens in Eyefinity mode plus 1 in extended desktop mode on one video card.Here's what mine looks like. Top 3 are my main view running in Eyefinity and the bottom center is the extended desktop.Disregard the 5 screen (map view) because it is running on a separate computer.The entire gauge screen is one undockable window that I simply drag to that monitor.Assuming you have the video card set-up right, you need to open the panels you want while you are in Windows mode.Again do this while you are in Windows Mode. Open, right click on the panel and choose "Undock Window".It should show up as a new window. Move it to the second screen then size and position it where you want it.Then when you have everything where you want it on the second screen, then you can go to full screen on the main view.Let me know if this works.

Nice setup there, Jim.

. Same yoke even. 3#, 26" Asus 16:10 though. By far the best upgrade I ever did for my simming. Thanks for the additional info. Noted and stored away. I always like eyefinity's resolution since it was higher, but lucky for me Matrox just bumped theirs up (finally). Now I too can get all three at 1920x1080 (5760x1080 combined res). It's the only way to sim (and work for that matter).

Thanks Dan. I can not image going back to anything less than 3 screens. As you said, the extra room is a major plus.I don't know how we ever managed before. Anything less seems so primitive.

Big time. I'm running one right now to do these videos and it's just painful. I don't even want to game or sim. BF3 being out and me sitting here looking at one monitor is what I imagine hell being. Not to mention since I got the NGX I've been trapped to one screen. Not just gaming but work also. Painting is pathetic even. So use to one screen with my tools, one for full screen editing and the third for picture viewing and comparisons. Two was nice, but mainly for work. I never notice the bezels with 3 screens but with two I nearly went cross eyed ;)

Thanks, Jim I understand what you talking about and it sounds like it could be a solution for me as well (I converted your setup concept to mines).I never thought about the Un docking "Windows", it makes sense it could solve the problem.Thanks a million for your help, I'll give it a shot and let you know.BTW - nice setup you got there, isn't the 3 screen setup a huge FPS hit? (1920 x 3.....)

Regardless of what you use, eyefinity or trip2go, there isn't a frame hit since it's all being pushed by your video, not CPU like FSX is driven by. In other words whether you're viewing it in 1024x768 or 5760x1080, the same things are still being drawn or simulated (calculated). Both just take what is being drawn and then disperses it among more screen real-estate. It's not like your in FSX and telling it to open a new window which is very rough on fps. Widescreen gaming does have it's problems though, but not for FSX. Mostly it's in trying to find the right hack for older games and POV. Some things also have issues with the wide format like Photoshops "Save For Web" gui. When I first got it, I expected I would have to fly default aircraft to enjoy it but was blown away when I loaded up the MD11, and J41 at 1680x1050 x's 3 (5040x1050) with no fps hit at all. Well, just in what has been discussed and cleared up here that is.

in other words, you have to have a "better" Display card if you use the 3 screens configuration as apposed to one screen for this to have no FPS hits is what you saying.GPU has to work harder now to draw more stuff as you increased your FOV, some one has to work to fill those in with data/images.

Regardless of what you use, eyefinity or trip2go, there isn't a frame hit since it's all being pushed by your video, not CPU like FSX is driven by. In other words whether you're viewing it in 1024x768 or 5760x1080, the same things are still being drawn or simulated (calculated). Both just take what is being drawn and then disperses it among more screen real-estate. It's not like your in FSX and telling it to open a new window which is very rough on fps. Widescreen gaming does have it's problems though, but not for FSX. Mostly it's in trying to find the right hack for older games and POV. Some things also have issues with the wide format like Photoshops "Save For Web" gui. When I first got it, I expected I would have to fly default aircraft to enjoy it but was blown away when I loaded up the MD11, and J41 at 1680x1050 x's 3 (5040x1050) with no fps hit at all. Well, just in what has been discussed and cleared up here that is.

Hey Turbine777.I haven't checked lately but in FS9, using an 8800GTX with TripleHeadToGo, the hits in FPS was about 35% between single and triple screen.Are you sure about not loosing FPS?Bert Van Bulck

Positive. At least with the cards I've used. People will forever say that SLI has no bearing on FSX, or SLI cards that come already as a dual card. Well, this is one of the instances that it does make a difference in using the trip2go. The 8800 was a great card and still is I guess, but never owned it. I saw 0 fps drop in my GTX295, and that was replaced with a GTX480 from EVGA (295 died) and it's just about the same. It also has to do with each persons fsx.cfg. Many will say FSX has 0 to do with video cards and that is wrong. Little to do with video cards may be a correct statement when using default settings, but not once you start tweaking your fsx.cfg. Things like, amount of traffic, mesh complexity, etc, are using the same amount of cpu usage whether you're using the trip2go or not, those values or cpu demand doesn't change. I have a comparison thread around here somewhere but more in FOV (field of view). I do remember noting several different FPS comparisons though and there wasn't anything other than 1 or 2 fps plus or minus but that is something you would see in comparing the same specs, same area, time of day etc. If someone is struggling with FS performance to begin with, it might not be a great idea, but for those that have overkill systems and higher end video cards, they won't see anything but pure bliss.Joel, correct, like I said, the video is working slightly harder but 99% of simmers have overkill cards not doing anything, thus why so many FSX.cfg tweaks bring so much confusion and happiness. If you have an 8800 ultra, then you shouldn't be looking at buying a trip2go, no, the video card should be upgraded 1st, that should be a no brainer. What I've said, and am saying is there is no more cpu work for it and if you have a decent rig and runs your fs at decent frame rate then it won't matter.Keep in mind also that your normal optimum performance of your video card / monitor, it at the native resolution. So I will see better performance now with the 1920x1080 x 3, then I did with the 1680x1050 x 3. If it was able to do 1980 x 1200 x 3, then I would be running all at their native and that would be my better performance, or most optimal performance.

Turbine777,I can not agree with you more from my own personal experience.I had the GTX295 up until 3 weeks ago and I hardly ever suffered from low FPS, my Average FPS with the NGX in the cockpit at an Aerosoft airport with Traffic (UT2)was about 28FPS some times it would drop lower as 18FPS, but yet very flyable.then unfortunately my GTX295 starting acting wired , turning off my screen with no reason, reseting my Computer, etc.so I had to buy a new Display card. at this point I was told all the time and reading all over "display cards have no difference or hardly any over FPS in FSX".So , what did I do next? I went out and got myself a cheaper version of a Display card (ATI 6790), believing that "naaa, I don't need an expensive one, as FSX is more depended on CPU and GPU has very little rule on performance".well so I believed as every one kept on stating the same thing over and over again and again.Guess what? boy what a surprise I had when I put in my new Display card.I never ever, regardless to what airport pass the 18-22 FPS in the NGX cockpit, and now I can't even fly in Orbx FTX areas as the FPS drops to insane low numbers.the funny part is that when I add the AI traffic (UT2) my FPS stays pretty much the same (15-20FPS), so it is the Display card that can't keep that up, not the CPU!!!!as if it was the CPU depended only, then my FPS would had to drop drastically when I added the AI (as we all know AI is CPU, not GPU).Since my FPS was hardly affected by the AI, it was a proof hound in a rock that it is the GPU that had issues and couldn't keep up the pase.whoever tells you guys that GPU has little affect on FSX FPS, has no idea what he is talking about."Exhibit A" = Myself!! I got burned believing so.

I loved the 295 and same thing happened to me that you described. I even started a thread in my forum that had people looking at me all kinds of weird ways. Soon after I started the topic, the card died. The 480 has done what the 295 did, but to a point. In FSX, it keeps up and some things even better. For the 1st time I was able to cross some barriers in my fsx.cfg but in some older games (pre-DX11), the 295 was a better performer. Apples to oranges I guess but overall am happy with what I have, even though it's a single gpu. The 480 is dirt cheap too, unlike the $600 I paid for my red edition 295.People that say GPU has no affect are I think mainly talking about how the FSX engine (and maybe FS9, not sure) and how it hands so many things off the the CPU, like aircraft shadows and things. SLI on the other hand is one of those things that's also been in debate for years with FSX. Sure, if someone is running a resolution like 1980x1200 then they can run comparisons all day and see no difference and feel completely right about stamping their findings as complete, but they are not. SLI or SLI type cards (that of which single 4xx and 5xx can do now) only really benefited in higher resolutions. It was this that made me really fair them replacing my workhorse 295 with the 480 since I was running 5040x1050 with the 74x at KBOS with 20+ fps. Of course, we all have different set ups and I think what makes so many say the video card has no change (a wrong statement most of the time) is because certain sliders only effect CPU. For example, it you turn up or down you scenery complexity slider, you then turn on jetways. If you have that option on in UT2 for the AI to use jetways and say have the radius set to 50mi max (like I do), then when you first load a flight at a gate at KBOS you are normally down to single digits (or KORD). This is because there are so many nearby airports and that one small movement of that slider can cripple the best system. Of course, all I'm saying here is that some people are correct, but it really depends on the circumstance. I recently was troubleshooting a problem with a forum friend and found his test flight was from KDEN to KATL . Well, that really isn't much of a benchmark since it has 0 ocean, little terrain and scarce airport activity inbetween. He then didn't understand how all of a sudden his FSX install went to crap since he just did a flight to KJFK (or might have been KORD. Even developers get a bad rap with these airports because the FPS on the defaults can vary so much solely on ones sliders or AI settings. They then blame the developer since they never fly into such busy areas.