january

Try reducing the resolution of your monitor. My guess is that your CPU cannot always keep up with the demand for pixel recomputation- especially as nearby clouds seem to move increasingly more rapidly as the airplane gets close. Same thing may happen on the ground when taxiing and the airplane swings around rapidly in front of a building.CPU and GPU capabilities need to be matched- lowering resolution reduces the number of pixels which have to be computed for these fast changing scenery situations.(Another reason for being cautious when considering the use of larger monitors- which most likely need higher resolutions to avoid graininess!)AR

Search the AVSIM Forums for "Multi Monitors". Lots of info on this topic about 2 years ago.The pic shows what can be done with a couple of 17" LCDs and an ancient 18" CRT- producing what the eyes/brain see as a single image about 45" wide.In this pic you can see how accurately the white painted runway # aligns across two monitors via careful bezel correction to the outer view angles.Processor is an ancient AMD 1.8 with two GeForce FX5200 GPUs.AR

Frame rate doesn't really tell much in this situation. In complex situations with lots of scenery nearby such as a night landing, the FPS could drop as low as about 7 and the plane flew quite normally and smoothly EXCEPT nearby objects such as landing lights flashing past wingtips develop quite a "chatter". That is, the airplane travels too great a distance between frame updates for the specific monitor with that object. In effect, close up scenery chatters, although airplane motion remains smooth.Below 7 or 8 FPS everything deteriorates to non flyable. Again, the reason seems to be that 2/3 of the whole image is always frozen and looks perfect while the other 1/3 shows the flickers & stutters of too low a frame rate.So displayed frame rate doesn't mean too much with multi monitors- other than a low number means you don't have much cushion if the scenery gets more complex or airplane motion becomes very rapid such as entering a rapid turn.So I select FS settings that will keep FPS above 16-18 (actually 30-40 with a single monitor/view.)Incidentally one of the neat things for multi mon flying is aerobatics- if you try it, keep a barf bag handy!And always ensure that any monitor is always viewed square on (line of sight from eyes to center point of the monitor). If not square horizontally & vertically, there is image distortion. Try sitting where a visitor might sit beside you to see this distortion!!!!! This is why multiple monitors must be arranged in an arc- just like the screen in an IMAX theatre.AR

A fourth VIEW will push a single computer CPU pretty hard- I suspect those videos are powered by multiple networked computers.However, it IS possible! Here is a screen shot showing an experiment displaying 5 different views on my 3 monitors. It worked but really overwhelmed my system and the outer mons with dual views caused the relative size distortion you see in the pics. (The wing tips display AHEAD here on triple monitors- with mons 4/5 angled beside you, these side views would seem normal.)My three monitors are powered by two video cards- I would have needed additional cards to put views 4 & 5 on separate monitors.I would highly recommend triple monitors for the forward views rather than just two. It is more natural- producing a field of view roughly eqivalent to what the real pilot sees looking ahead. Monitors 4 and 5 then would nicely display the side views.AR

If the 4th monitor is used to display a 4th VIEW, there WILL be a significant impact on frame rate. I believe most users of quad monitors use the 4th to display the panel or various gauges etc- anything except a 4th view!Don't put too much emphasis on Frame Rate- it is only a RELATIVE indicator & doesn't really tell much about smoothness.To test this, I have many times taken a low altiude test flight with lots of scenery, allowing Frame Rate to stabilize -typically in the 16-20 range with 3 synched views: LFwd, Fwd, RFwd. Then I suddenly delete the two outer views and the Frame rate jumps into the 35-45 range. THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE IN SMOOTHNESS!This result is so surprising, that I have done this test many times to ensure it was not my imagination.Frame rate tells little about smoothness.And my machine is an ancient AMD 1.8 with 2 GeForce FX 5200 GPUS !You will also be surprised at how your landings improve when you have a natural wide field of view rather than a single FS view-that is like looking thru a mailing tube! Which of these pics will yield the smoothest landings?AR

Your second choice (4 monitors) displays about 8 % fewer pixels than the 3 monitor setup. And it is number of pixels that really determines performance.A yardstick I use with FS9 is that 2 monitors of scenery (2 different views) will eat up 30% more CPU horsepower than a single monitor. And 3 scenery monitors uses 50% more CPU than one mon.All of which sounds terrible- until you realize that only one view is being updated at any instant and the other two are static or perfectly smooth!!!! If the outer view angles are shifted to compensate for bezel widths, then the whole thing is seen by the brain as very smooth. After all, 2/3 of the whole is stopped all the time! As long as the displayed frame rate remains above 16-18 you are in good shape.Three 19" LCDs will give you a perspective width of close to 50" and a combined FS Field of View with bezel adj. of nearly 150º.The pic shows 2 17" LCDs with an 18" CRT producing a 45" perspective.And small, old LCDs are now pretty much giveaways!!AR

Fr Bill - My impression is that software is NEVER DONE.(although there probably are instances where it is so bad that it should be ash canned immediately upon release- in which event, it truly would be "done!" My attempts at software for the IBM 650 some 55 years ago, probably fell within this latter category.)AR

In my screen shot, the outer monitors are displaying additional FS views - Left Forward & Right Forward giving a total Field of View of 3 x 45º or 135º. When the outer views are each shifted a few degrees in Panel Cfg to compensate for the monitor bezels, your brain sees a single image of about 146º FOV. This is approx. what good human vision produces without rolling the eyeballs or turning one's head.On my old AMD 1.8 'puter (2 GeForce FX5200 GPUs) I could not make full screen work but others report the opposite.I can see no performance hit due to opening instrument panel popups- except for large popups such as Overhead or COM.The additional VIEWs DO impact FPS somewhat but the overall effect is spectacular. Reason is that since there is only one CPU - then only one view is being updated at any moment- the other two are frozen- and that means perfection for 2/3 of the scene that your brain is seeing.As long as your system can achieve a CONSTANT 16-18 FPS with integrated triple views you are in hog heaven visually!I would NEVER go back to just a single view- that's like looking at the world through a telescope!AR

Even better, triple monitors via a second GPU.ARDreamFleet Bonanza at Pemberton BC

Al - As far as I know, the most sophisticated, real world simulators- Level D type- do NOT provide for walkarounds- nor passengers boarding etc. In effect you do "magically appear" in the cockpit and that is what the simulator is all about- ie flying the bird from a mockup of a real flightdeck!For my money, what I want is a poorman's approximation of a Level D. No more/no less.In any event, i believe the first officer usually does the walk around- captains have more interesting things to do!AR

And my prediction (indubitably correct) - for FLIGHT is: "QUE SERA, SERA" !(with apologies to Doris Day and James Stewart.)AR

-------------------- Kevin, I can give you my personal assurance that you do NOT want to return to the situation the world was in on Dec 8 1941, when FDR spoke of "a day of infamy".Despite the present day inconveniences and affronts to our persons, the world is still a much better place than it was then.AR

Those who feel their liberties have been sacrificed as a result of 9/11 were obviously not around to experience what happened after Dec 7 1941.I was.AR

Samuel- The larger screen does not produce a wider Field of View- that remains the same until you Zoom Out or In.However, the bigger screen can widen your Perspective. That is, it can help to ensure your eyes and brain see ONLY Flight Sim and not objects outside the screen.But as mentioned, in many cases, the bigger screen simply gets moved further away to avoid resolution graininess and then you have really not gained anything.But it is possible with a large screen to display multiple views and so increase the FoV. The screen shot shows triple views and a 135º FoV on a single monitor!ARPMDG 747 3 views on 1 mon exper. "Aloft near CYVR" (Two windscreen posts are caused by also displaying the First Officer panel popup.)

Samuel- Field of View is the "width" of the FS view (expressed in degrees) @ zero zoom.Since FS provides 8 different views- Fwd, Left or Right Fwd etc - each view spans an angle of 45º.Eight 45º views completes the full 360º of a full circle.When you apply Zoom, that angle changes- for example, 50% zoom in reduces the the angular width of any view from 45º to 22 1/2º. Objects seem closer but the "width" decreases. Similarly, zooming out increases the width or FoV but moves objects farther away- just the same as using binoculars wrong way around.The danger in using much zoom in or out is that apparent distance keeps altering- for example, an airport runway seems farther away when zoomed out to get wider lateral view- BUT the speed or RATE of the sim remains constant. Thus you seem to get to the runway threshold much faster than you expected! Field of View does not change with size of monitor- each view is always 45º at zero zoom regardless of monitor or screen width. But as it gets bigger you may have to increase resolution to avoid graininess. I suspect many users of large screens are forced to move the screen farther away to minimize this problem. Perspective is the width your eyes and brain see and that depends on how close your monitor(s) are to your nose. The greater the perspective, the more lifelike the scene since other visual distractions are elimnated. Think of how IMAX with triple screens produces a wide perspective that really immerses the viewer. To give a real example, I use 2 17" LCDs and an18" CRT combined to produce a 45" wide perspective. Each monitor displays a different 45º view (LFwd,Fwd,RFwd) for a combined 135º picture. By shifting the outer views a few degrees (in Panel CFG) to compensate for the bezels, one's eyes and brain see the whole as a single 45 " image- and the bezels "disappear'. Hope this helps. Search the AVSIM forums for "multi monitor"- lots written on this subject a couple of years ago.AR

Ian- Yes we all miss Opa.Here is my suggestion for multi monitors- in this case as they say, a picture is worth a long paragraph!The beauty of 2D & multiple mons is that panning and zooming is eliminated- the pic shows a constant 146º Field of View which on triple 17" LCDs spans 45 inches in width.And ALL panel components remain in a fixed location- thus in conformance with FAA regs re Flight Training Devices.Like your own private IMAX theater! (And keep a barf bag handy if you are into aerobatics.)ARPic is Df Bonanza on dawn final approach for R8L CYVR

Couldn't have said it better myself!The three monitors (2 17"s & an 18") in this pic span a 45" perspective. At 26" from my eyes that's all I see. No point in bigger monitors if they are then moved farther away due to graininess of the pic- which then means using higher resolutions which need more horsepower! Like a pup chasing its tail!Build your own little IMAX with todays giveaway 17" or 19" LCDs!AR

Allen I can't compete with the real world but here is how KLAX looks to me via FS9 and the Dreamfleet Bonanza.AR

A surprising omission from PMDG given that the FAA will not accept the use of Virtual in approved Flight Training Devices.(Any component of a display such as instrument or switch, must always appear in a fixed location in the display, hence panning or zooming is not acceptable.)AR

Or simply save the flight after you have made the adjustment- then always start from that saved flight.AR

My father spent nearly five years in the trenches of France and did graves registration there until mid 1919- Canadian Army 4th B, 1st div CEFA cousin lies in a cemetary in Holland- Canadian Army, Queen's Own RiflesThe boy next door lies in a watery Mediterranean grave- Royal Canadian Air ForceMy father-in-law wrote the letters to mothers when the Lancasters failed to return in the early morning hours- Padre, Royal Canadian Air Force, Bomber Command.Those who didn't experience it, will never appreciate the significance of tradition.Long overdue.AR

I think you need the actual width and height dimensions of a monitor to calc the pixels per sq inch. But unless you are comparing similar technology between monitors, I'm not sure that pixels per sq inch is the ultimate comparison.Suffice to say, as a rule of thumb the bigger the monitor (greater surface area), the higher the resolution (# of pixels) that's needed.In the final analysis, it's how the viewer perceives image quality that counts.I have been quite happy with triple monitors, each @ 1024x768. displaying views LFwd, Fwd, RFwd. With careful bezel allowance, these views are seen by eyes and brain as a single image approx 45" wide. In effect, the resultant 146º FoV image has a resolution of 3072x768.AR

I don't know of a rule of thumb- but it could be easily calculated.Work out the number of pixels per square inch for your present monitor & resolution, then apply that to the area of the larger monitor.A little trial and error should suggest what higher resolution would give a comparable pixel density & visual quality on a bigger monitor.It is the density of pixels or number of pixels per sq inch that determines quality of image.But all these pixels have to be computed by the CPU, so there is a price to be paid for size and quality.AR

Further to the use of different sizes of monitors- If you are displaying multiple views or 2D panel plus panel popups, it is desirable that the monitors be fairly close to each other in size.This is especially so in the case of a different view on each monitor where components of each view will not match up. For example a long building that overlaps on two monitors will not mate properly without use of small amounts of zoom to equalize size. Same would apply to runway markings straddling two monitors.(The monitors in this pic are all of different makes/sizes and type- CRT & LCD. With a bit of colur balancing they all appear identical.)AR

To obtain a benefit from a larger monitor, you will need to increase the resolution to maintain quality of image; and also keep the new monitors at the same distance from your eyes.Increased resolution puts a heavier load on your computer and if you move the monitors farther away, you gain nothing in width of visual perspective.AR