Thinking of plunging into triple monitor

[G-BANX 1]

Hi all,

 

I'm thinking of going down the triple monitor route.. I'm currently running fsx classic with many many high end addons such as orbx, aerosoft, uk2000 extreme etc.

 

I was hoping for some feedback as it's an expensive venture... Is this going to kill my frames? I don't want to spend £500 on two extra monitors to fly with 10-15 fps

 

My specs are as follows..

 

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/markwrd1/saved/bsN8TW

 

The monitor I'll be using is an Asus mx279h

[MarkDH 234]

I was hoping for some feedback as it's an expensive venture... Is this going to kill my frames? I don't want to spend £500 on two extra monitors to fly with 10-15 fps

 

It's a lot of pixels, but many claim to run successfully with 6Mp (or more). I have a 4.6MHz machine with a GTX670 and I have to make compromises to run even a 4Mp display (4066 x 1024). That's with weather, of course. Beware that most people seem to quote their best performance and become evasive when you ask about weather. What frame rate are you hoping for? I cap mine at 40 and generally it varies between about 20 and 40.

[G-BANX 1]

It's a lot of pixels, but many claim to run successfully with 6Mp (or more). I have a 4.6MHz machine with a GTX670 and I have to make compromises to run even a 4Mp display (4066 x 1024). That's with weather, of course. Beware that most people seem to quote their best performance and become evasive when you ask about weather. What frame rate are you hoping for? I cap mine at 40 and generally it varies between about 20 and 40.

I'm also capped at 40 through an external limiter. I've tweaked and tweaked and tweaked the config to get it running really well I'm getting between 20-40 also but smooth as opposed to bouncing all over the place.. Just feeling like I need the next step now..

 

What do you mean by "It's a lot of pixels, but many claim to run successfully with 6Mp"

[MarkDH 234]

What do you mean by "It's a lot of pixels, but many claim to run successfully with 6Mp"

 

It sounds like you are currently running 1920 x 1080, which is 2 megapixels. The three-screen display you are aiming at is 6 megapixels (1920 x 1080 x 3), or three times as many pixels for FSX to calculate for every frame. I would expect that to hurt your performance, assuming you are going to be running the same hardware otherwise. That said, I don't know the effect of using a modern GPU.

[Overload 91]

I hesitate to proffer advice, as I'm far from the most knowledgeable person on AVSIM on the technical side of things. But after many years of running triple screens (3x42 inch plasma's with Triplehead2go), I've gone for the 4K option, which in my opinion is the way forward.

This biggest problem for me with the triple screens was the stretching that you get on the left and right screens, that gets noticeably worse towards the edges. Some have found work-rounds to minimise it, but way to techy for me to understand.

I now run 2 sims, one FSX, one P3D, the FSX with a 4K Samsung 48inch, and the other a 4K Samsung 65 inch. The scenery improvements running at 4K are significant with ORBX etc, and although it doesn't have as wide a view as the the triple option, because of the clarity of the virtual cockpit, I'm zooming back a little, which gives me a wider field of view, so flying visually becomes easier.

I sit 3 feet away from my 65inch screen, which sounds ridiculous, but because of the clarity of the screen, seems perfectly reasonable, allowing what seems to me, as almost real-life views of the virtual cockpit and outside.

Any limitations of the field of view I overcome with EZdoc.

Frame rate-wise I do as good or better with 4K at 30hz with my previous 970 card than with the triple screen, although I've upgraded recently to a 780i for maximum frames.

4K has come down in price dramatically, and don't be afraid to go 40 inch, old rules just don't apply to 4K in my opionion.

Have a look at a few examples here, around the same price as 2 extra ASUS screens:

http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Computer/cat/Monitors/subcat/4K-Ultra-HD

 

But if you remain unconvinced, I've got 2 TripleHead2Go's for sale  :smile:

 

Eugene

 

[G-BANX 1]

It sounds like you are currently running 1920 x 1080, which is 2 megapixels. The three-screen display you are aiming at is 6 megapixels (1920 x 1080 x 3), or three times as many pixels for FSX to calculate for every frame. I would expect that to hurt your performance, assuming you are going to be running the same hardware otherwise. That said, I don't know the effect of using a modern GPU.

Ah excellent thanks, I understand now. Yes that would be the correct resolution. I don't want to change any existing stuff as its not even a year old..

 

If I plug another monitor into my card and fps are hit then I guess I could get another card and SLI to boos performance?

I hesitate to proffer advice, as I'm far from the most knowledgeable person on AVSIM on the technical side of things. But after many years of running triple screens (3x42 inch plasma's with Triplehead2go), I've gone for the 4K option, which in my opinion is the way forward.

This biggest problem for me with the triple screens was the stretching that you get on the left and right screens, that gets noticeably worse towards the edges. Some have found work-rounds to minimise it, but way to techy for me to understand.

I now run 2 sims, one FSX, one P3D, the FSX with a 4K Samsung 48inch, and the other a 4K Samsung 65 inch. The scenery improvements running at 4K are significant with ORBX etc, and although it doesn't have as wide a view as the the triple option, because of the clarity of the virtual cockpit, I'm zooming back a little, which gives me a wider field of view, so flying visually becomes easier.

I sit 3 feet away from my 65inch screen, which sounds ridiculous, but because of the clarity of the screen, seems perfectly reasonable, allowing what seems to me, as almost real-life views of the virtual cockpit and outside.

Any limitations of the field of view I overcome with EZdoc.

Frame rate-wise I do as good or better with 4K at 30hz with my previous 970 card than with the triple screen, although I've upgraded recently to a 780i for maximum frames.

4K has come down in price dramatically, and don't be afraid to go 40 inch, old rules just don't apply to 4K in my opionion.

Have a look at a few examples here, around the same price as 2 extra ASUS screens:

http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Computer/cat/Monitors/subcat/4K-Ultra-HD

 

But if you remain unconvinced, I've got 2 TripleHead2Go's for sale  :smile:

 

Eugene

Thanks Eugene, I completely understand where your coming from, I want the most immersive experience. I guess you've been fortunate to experience both. I wonder if the missus will notice the 47" disappear out the front room

[MarkDH 234]

If I plug another monitor into my card and fps are hit then I guess I could get another card and SLI to boos performance?

 

Well no, with FSX you will not gain much with SLI. I think it will allow you better anti-aliasing without such a performance hit but basic performance will not increase with SLI. I concur with the other poster that 4K is a better option, particularly if you use TrackIR. It's a much more natural aspect ratio and you can go up to maybe 55" without compromising too much on the resolution.

[Patriot3810 182]

Hi all,

 

I'm thinking of going down the triple monitor route.. I'm currently running fsx classic with many many high end addons such as orbx, aerosoft, uk2000 extreme etc.

 

I was hoping for some feedback as it's an expensive venture... Is this going to kill my frames? I don't want to spend £500 on two extra monitors to fly with 10-15 fps

 

My specs are as follows..

 

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/markwrd1/saved/bsN8TW

 

The monitor I'll be using is an Asus mx279h

i have the exact same monitor and considered buying 2 more for x-plane 10

[Wing 32]

I thought about tripples but instead decided to go with a 1440p 34" curved ultrawide, a Dell U3415W. I use my computer for work and simming and for me this was a much wiser choice. You don't get quite the same field of view as with tripples but you don't have the setup and logistical hassles hassles of tripples either and it's better for FPS (plus no bezels). There are a bunch of 34" ultrawides on the market now to choose from.

 

Some people recommended 4K but beyond the basic stuff Windows does not handle 4K very well in terms of scaling (although if you have a computer dedicated to flight simulator then this doesn't matter). For my money 1440p is the perfect vertical resolution to run Windows without having to worry about scaling.

 

I have a single GTX 980 Ti and it drives the display beautifully with anything I throw at it.

[G-BANX 1]

Well no, with FSX you will not gain much with SLI. I think it will allow you better anti-aliasing without such a performance hit but basic performance will not increase with SLI. I concur with the other poster that 4K is a better option, particularly if you use TrackIR. It's a much more natural aspect ratio and you can go up to maybe 55" without compromising too much on the resolution.

ah ok, I know it's cpu intense etc but wasn't sure.

I thought about tripples but instead decided to go with a 1440p 34" curved ultrawide, a Dell U3415W. I use my computer for work and simming and for me this was a much wiser choice. You don't get quite the same field of view as with tripples but you don't have the setup and logistical hassles hassles of tripples either and it's better for FPS (plus no bezels). There are a bunch of 34" ultrawides on the market now to choose from.

 

Some people recommended 4K but beyond the basic stuff Windows does not handle 4K very well in terms of scaling (although if you have a computer dedicated to flight simulator then this doesn't matter). For my money 1440p is the perfect vertical resolution to run Windows without having to worry about scaling.

 

I have a single GTX 980 Ti and it drives the display beautifully with anything I throw at it.

I'm very fortunate to of been able to build a dedicated fsx machine. So how Windows handles the 4K wouldn't be much of an issue I guess?

 

There's two reasons I was thinking of triple monitor

- field of view

- sheer size of what I'm looking at

 

Maybe this could be achieved with a 4K 50" tv then? Or would it have to be a monitor?

[Overload 91]

Maybe this could be achieved with a 4K 50" tv then?

 

 

Recent quote from another post, after buying a 55" 4K

 

"Well, i got this yesterday and......wow...just wow."

 

I think a TV will be just fine, he got this one:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Samsung-UE55JU6800-LED-4K-Ultra-HD-Nano-Crystal-Smart-TV-55-/281814869425?hash=item419d79a5b1

 

Full post here:

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/484124-new-monitor-lg-55uf680v-uhd-or-samsung-ue55ju6445/#entry3380275

 

Don't think I've ever seen a post on AVSIM from anyone that's been disappointed with 4K.

 

Eugene

[G-BANX 1]

Many thanks all, this information is very useful! I actually completely forgot I have a second 27" monitor at work which I'm going to borrow and try at home just out of curiosity to see how it affects of performance

[VeryBumpy 272]

Many thanks all, this information is very useful! I actually completely forgot I have a second 27" monitor at work which I'm going to borrow and try at home just out of curiosity to see how it affects of performance

 

I'll be curious to hear how more than 1 monitor works for your frame rates.

[Overload 91]

I'll be curious to hear how more than 1 monitor works for your frame rates.

 

 

I didn't do a scientific test, but when I set up my new P3d sim with a 65" 4K Samsung, I didn't attach a second monitor for a couple of weeks, and haven't noticed any discernible difference after using a 1920 x 1080 second TV screen for ancillary tasks.

 

Eugene