myatan

How can you say it will make no difference, I am not talking about one row, I am talking about two rows, 3 x 2. It looks phenomenal to me and truly gives you a realistic virtual cockpit feeling.So you are saying run 2 x TH2GO and 2 x 480 GTX? First of all I thought you couldn't run multiple video cards with FSX (maybe I was wrong), but second of all, do you realize how much money you will have to spend for that? $300 x 2 + $500 x 2 = $1,600 vs $400 (ATI)? Are you crazy? You could buy the extreme octa core i7 980X and the most expensive intel SSD for that and use eyefinity, the performance benefit of using that type of hardware over Fermi would be far more beneficial, don't you think?I can see how the cliche TH2GO/Nvidia pattern got stuck in people's heads all this time, and I'll give you that, ATI haven't been doing a good job, but things have changed. You shouldn't be paying hundreds of dollars of extra just to have extra views. That's plain ridiculous to me.You can just use the keywords "eyefinity vs triplehead2go" in google, and every single review/forum thread/article/post will tell you something similar:http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum...373&start=0TH2GO is old, expensive, there is no future for it, it's not upgradable, and it's not even sufficient (come on with the 57Hz monitors and 5040 x 1050 resolution limitation, if I am going to have 3 monitor configuration, I want to have 1900 x 1200 x 3, not the old 1680 ones).

Won't you have to get a new motherboard/RAM just for i7 upgrade? You are running the fastest non-i7 CPU out there with the fastest air OC. You have a good video card, sufficient RAM, any extra money you are going to spend is not right in my opinion, now is the worst time to upgrade, quad i7 is coming to an end. A year from today, you'll have octa cores and hexa cores running everywhere, quad core will be history. Intel will release the new octa core for mainstream hopefully end of this summer. In fact, they released the 8 core for XEON and releasing 12 core soon for server boards. It makes me wonder if they will do the same for mainstream. They will, it's just a question of when. I'd wait for another 6 months or so and maybe pay $100-200 more, but get something that will last for 2-3 years.No point of doing a full upgrade to a mainboard/CPU that's been out there for 1.5 years. A lot will be happening soon, the SSD prices will come down (Intel), the new ATI/Nvidia series will come out (hopefully a better FERMI), and whatever you are spending money for will collect dust.I can tell you the Fermi/i7 combo looks like windows vista. A nice not "so-great-but-getting-there" public beta which will help these companies (Intel/Nvidia) to get the best. Hang in there, don't waste any money.

The problem is, there is no way to have 6 displays with Nvidia or is there?

I don't know how this is the case, usually it's the other way around. It's just strange what you are saying that's all, 5870 usually performs better than GTX 480. It just strikes me crazy as to how you believe eyefinity will underperform compared to a-) NVIDIA b-) TH2GO. Including a website like hardcop, everywhere I read, ATI outperformed NVIDIA in any way possible, ESPECIALLY multi monitor support.Not to mention:http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/...technology.aspxCan you imagine flying over LAX using that? Can you do that with your 480? Come on now:)You have to be doing something wrong, 5040 x 1050 is not even that hard, people are getting smooth experience from 6 x 24" monitors, do you not agree?Here, one of many videos out there whereby eyefinity with much higher resolution performs very well with the highest settings possible using GEX and REX: How do you think that's possible?

I really don't understand what you mean by visual quality and fluidity. Have you actually tried the vsync fix for the ATI card? Have you tried with 3 views? You should have no problem with full AA on 3 monitors at 5760 x 1080 resolution for the 5870. If you have the PC in your signature, that may explain the source of your problems. First of all, the 965 is rather old, I know you probably want to smash your keyboard to my face now given that it was a $1,000 extreme CPU a few months back, but for that price, if you tried the 980X running around 4.6-4.7 Ghz watercooled coupled with very high speed 12 GB RAM, you'd see a huge difference. In addition, I'd highly suggest you drop the 10 year old XP and move on to windows 7. I'm not sure how you are even using windows XP on eyefinity.Compared to TH2GO, with 1 video card (480 GTX with TH2GO vs 1 5870), eyefinity is far far better in terms of performance and quality, if you know what you are doing with the right system. Just because you don't have the right configuration, doesn't mean eyefinity isn't good, it also definitely doesn't mean you will get what you are looking for.From what everyone is saying and the reviews I have been seeing, the whole fermi/480 GTX deal looks like NVIDIA, for the first time in about 10 years, did something wrong, and ATI is a step ahead. Considering they released the card in september of 2009, more than 6 months later, what nvidia came up with has loads of issues, not to mention it's on par with the 5870 in terms of performance but requires a lot of juice.I have hated ATI/AMD, and I haven't had an ATI card in X200 about 8 years ago, but I will give it to them this time. They are doing a great job.

why are you guys wasting all this time and money on the gtx 480 and TH2GO whereas 1 5870 for eyefinity 6 will do just fine? I find it quite weird really, now that the vsync problem is solved for ATI, if your goal is multi screen, you shouldn't even be thinking about what to use.2 x GTX480 = $1,200 (with tax and shipping) + TH2GO = $1,5005870 (the new eyefinity 6 with DPs) = $499.From what I'm reading, it beats the heck out of TH2GO, that solution is way out dated and old. I may understand it if you bought it 2-3 years back and want to stick with it, but I'd cut my losses and not waste money on a 480, not the mention 2 of them.You shouldn't have to spend that much money just to use 3 monitors. In addition, I heard multi GPUs were no-no for FSX?

Alex,I think at first you misunderstood us, now I understand what you are talking about. You are talking about the view distortion because of wide view modes after having 5160x2160 resolution (or anything close). What you are missing is, there are several fixes, of which one is only a fsx.cfg change which address this issue. Heck, the eyeinfity (or even TH2GO) has bezel correction capabilities (the new version has even more extra features). A properly setup eyefinity with 6 monitors have absolutely no problem in terms of the distortion. Please google this, and you will see there are several solutions.The reason why there is no VC in the real simulators is because you are actually sitting in front of a live cockpit and you don't have to change your view to see things or interact with them. Unless you have $150,000 to build a 737 full motion simulator, there is not much you can do.Everyone else,After doing some more research and finding out about the BP=0 fix and the vsync fix for ATI and how the latest display port version of eyefinity with 6 monitors is quite good, I think I decided to go with the next ATI card. I don't think there is any point of buying the 5870, considering it's almost a year old. So I think it's best if I wait for a few months which will also fit the idea of waiting for the mainstream hexa core. The only question/problem I have with eyefinity (or even TH2GO) at such high resolutions is that, it looks like the card can not handle AA at those resolutions. Can someone who has a similar setup comment on this? It sounds pretty ridiculous to me, having a $10,000 system but not being able to have AA on with such state of the art technology. Given that I am going to wait for the next ATI card, I might be a bit more lucky in terms of the performance, but even so, AA is a must have in my opinion, in any game.Thanks,

Alex,I UNDERSTAND what will happen when you zoom out/in, will you PLEASE stop explaining me the math behind FOV and zooming? All I am saying is WHY do you have to ZOOM in the first place? You should never ever have to do that. The only time I'd consider zooming would be in spot view.Sorry mate, I don't get you. If you know how to use TrackIr, if you have a decent hardware with at least 1920 x 1200 resolution, you should NOT have to zoom, period. You may be very old school and the whole TrackIR idea may make you throw up (it makes my wife dizzy, she seriously can not watch me in VC), and I understand, but please STOP trying to convince us how ugly it looks when you have to zoom. Zooming is zooming in VC, in 2D, in spot view, in tower view. Things will stretch when you zoom. A kid in 3rd grade knows that now. Not the mention, you will zoom if you have to zoom even in 2D panel if you want to see far.I'm serious here, I am not exaggerating my flying in any way, but I never zoom in VC, end of story! I don't think any sane person would, that's the whole point of TrackIR, it gives you to ability to get close to things in VC as if you were in real cockpit in real life by simply getting closer to your monitor. That's why that whole setup costs $150!Thanks,PS Please if you respond with another math equation explaining how the runway will look like it's never going to end I will shoot myself!:D I also just looked at your screenshots, there is something wrong with the way you are using your VC, I don't know what it might be though. Feel free to look at one of the 6 or 8 view videos in youtube for FSX. I also would like to mention, you are comparing FS9, a technology that is 6 years old now. When FS9 was released, we didn't even have C2D in the world!

Alex,I don't really understand what you are saying as far as the FOV and how the 102 knots will look like 310. I'm not training for FAA certificates neither I am a real world pilot, but I'm well educated enough to comprehend basic concepts like FOV and believe me, my VC isn't anything like what you are describing here. I used to have 2 x 24" monitors and I ran them 3840 x 1200 for a long time, and it was absolutely amazing. I then sold two of them and bought one better quality 26" which is now proving not so good.Anyways, this is the 3rd time I am asking this, can we please get back to topic? I really need to find a way to run 3 even 6 monitors, is the only way to do this with ATI? I'm not a fan of TH2GO because of its limitation with higher resolutions, and guess what, it's very ancient technology. Do you guys know if NVIDIA will come up with anything similar to eyefinity in near future? To be honest with you, I am waiting for mainstream hexa core to be released, so if NVIDIA comes up with something similar in 3-4 or even 6 months, I can wait that long.I am very suprised ATI doesn't have vsync in Windows 7. I'm guessing that's the main reason why people are having problems.Thanks,

I don't think you are understanding me, or I'm not understanding you. I will keep it simple.I have been using VC for a long time now. I don't remember, ever, using "zoom" extensively in any one of my flights. What you are talking about sounds like you never tried TrackIR (without VC doesn't seem possible to me) and when you did, you probably tried it on a rather small resolution. Obviously, for someone without the necessary hardware, looking around in VC is a nightmare, which is what the most old-timers suffer from, including veteran real time pilots with rather old systems.Again, without going off topic, my point for using VC is, the "real" feeling from looking around using TrackIR in MD-11 or MD-83, looking up and down, leaning forwards, left, right, or simply looking up and down as if you were in the real cockpit can not be replaced by pictures of the sections of cockpit engineered in photoshop. I know they look good, I also know it's far more easier and comfortable to use them, but guess what, again - in my opinion, good things don't come easy. The challange of using trackir in a VC gives more enjoyment than leaning back and flipping between 2D panels and clicking switches on them.I know they will always have 2D panels in payware planes, I wish they didn't, but they will. For the same reason why there are still companies creating FS9 addons or why windows XP was being sold years after it was supposed to be removed from the shelves. It's very hard to convince people to move forward with these types of things. When someone gets used to something, they never want to give up their routine and comfort zone, and really learn new things. Oh well I don't think there is any point of arguing, it's a matter of difference of opinion.

I am looking to buy one of the 737 yoke, one of these:http://www.737yoke.com/orhttp://www.flypfc.com/jetliner_yoke_boeing_737.htmlWhat I would like to know isa) Are they worth the money?:( Do you have to drill down on the floor to use them? If yes, what do you guys suggest, I can't drill on wooden floors :© Will they have force feedback - something like this http://www.flightillusion.com/ffby.hm

Trust me, I have spent SO MUCH time for the spiking problem. I have bought FSUIPC just for this, I have tried to clean up the throttle with compressed air, I have sent them back to Saitek and got new parts, but there was STILL spiking after using them for a few weeks. Whatever I read online, the spiking looks like an inevitable problem.

Is this one the best there is (MLC)?http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002IJA1EQ/?tag=mall02-20So I'm assuming SLC is a waste of money, MLCs write speeds are still far better than velociraptor?

Thanks for your responses, I really appreciate everyone's time for me. I guess there is simply no point of buying a GTX 480 then? There is no way I will get SLI, I think it's by far the worst piece of garbage PC world has ever known, the worst marketing campaign there is. It's something I will never do. I'd rather spend $1,400 and get a 737 yoke than spend $1000+ for 2 video cards. Not to mention the heat, the power, the big case, the motherboard, and a dozen other problems which come with the setup.That being said, I am also seeing these "tearing" issues with the ATI cards? What does that mean? How can there be tearing problem in such an advanced card? Isn't there vsync? Is the tearing only problem for the dual GPU cards?As for the VC and the 2D panels, I'm sorry but I really feel strongly against the use of 2D panels. I think, and I will probably not be very popular for saying this, after FSX, there is no point for using 2D panels. I think the VC is truly what the simulation is about. 2D panels are far more easier since you don't have to really - well - maintain your view and perspective to your surroundings. You can sit there eating whilst clicking your mouse and you can land an MD-11 with 1 engine in a storm if you wanted to. Try the VC on the other hand and things get very challenging which I really love. The whole point of my 3 or 6 screen idea is VC really. I haven't used 2D views since 2002 or 2000 - I can't remember which one had the VC first and it's something I will never use. In fact, I am all for PMDG and other big developers to remove 2D all together. I think there are many old timers who can't leave their comfort zone which cause most of these addons to be released at least 3-6 months late - assuming everyone puts equally effort into their 2D panels as PMDG does.Anyways, does anyone use ATI's eyefinity for FSX? I know it also supports 6 displays. Do you guys suggest 6 x 19" views or 3 x 26" displays? Is it tough to have 2 rows of monitors, would the top row be too high?Thanks,

There'll be a mainstream 6-core, Q3 the latest. You can count on it;) You can look back, the pattern has been the same for i7, Q series, E series, P4 series, heck, even the MMX in 90s.As for the SSD, does anyone actually own the X-25s from Intel? Are they worth the money?

Wow, thanks, seriously I didn't see that! I will check it out.What about throttles/MCP/gear controls? Any suggestions?

I am currently using saitek yoke/throttle/pedals for my simulator setup. Unfortunately, they have their limitations and I have had way too many spiking issues with them (been using them for nearly 2 years now). I am building a new PC soon, so I thought I would also get a new yoke/throttle/pedals/and optionally some more panels. I have been able to find 2 brands, PFC and GoFlight. I'd ideally get something like the 737 yoke but something that gets attached to a desk rather than the floor (I live in an apartment with wooden floors, my wife would divorce me if she saw that 737 yoke drilled on the floor). So I'm wondering if there is anything like that or if one of the other yokes in PFC would be useful (although not realistic). In addition, as far as the other stuff (throttles, panels) is concerned, I can only see GoFlight, however, and I mean no disrespect and arrogance here, they look very old and way too overly priced for something that doesn't look - well realistic (other than the MCP pro which I really like). I also read in a few different websites, even the $500 throttle from GoFlight runs into the spiking problem which I have with my cheap $50 saitek throttle.So, I really need advice. I am very limited as far as how much I can do "manually". I don't have my own house/apartment, I don't have time or place to do any sort of woodwork, but on the other than, I want the best and the most realistic parts as I can afford.Thanks.

Crashmax,How did you fit that huge Mora2 radiator into your case? Do you mind posting a picture?Thanks,

I want to build a new PC, budget wise, I'm very flexible. I haven't upgraded since my Q6600 almost 3 years ago, I pretty much waited for this day, and now I want the best. I am not going to rebuild "right now", I want to wait probably a few more months until a) Nvidia gets their act together with fermi, :( hexa cores hit mainstream (no way I'm wasting a $1,000 for a CPU that'll be $299 in 4-5 months, that money is better spent for something like a PFC yoke but anyways....). I have been reading a lot about SSDs, their gain is obvious, yes fast load times, better texture transition, etc. But what about SLC vs MLC? Yes, FSX doesn't do much as far as write I/O, once you install everything, you just read it, but I'm sure there is a reason why Intel's X-25 costs almost $700. Now, if there is really a benefit for an SLC, I will buy it, but is there? And if there is, do you guys see prices going down? I have been waiting and waiting for almost a year now, ever since X-25 was released, it's priced didn't drop a bit! The problem is, now that I have waited so long, I obviously don't want to buy something overpriced just to see its price go down in a month, plus, it's something that's been in the market quite some time, I wonder if Intel will release a new one?Thanks!

I want to build a new PC for FSX and my plan is to have 3-6 monitors (initially 3, but then have another 3 on top ), can a 480 GTX support this? I know ATI eyefinity can do this, but I would like to know where 480 is as far as multiple monitors are concerned. I would get the triple head 2 go but its limitation on the resolution is a huge problem. In fact I wonder why anyone with a 1920x1200 monitor (x3) would buy it given that it downgrades your resolution.The problem with ATI is obviously the micro stutters. I don't want to spend $3-4,000 on a PC just to have my video card ruin my flight because well lets be honest, FSX is an nvidia friendly game. If someone has a solution for the ATI problems, please let me know, then I won't bother with 480 GTX. To be frankly honest, I don't see the point of 480 or 5870 or 5970 for FSX. After 280 (or even 8800 Ultra), I hardly think there is any FPS gain. But that's not why I want to buy a monster video card (FPS), my problem is mutliple monitors.Also, I will be using TrackIR, so I want the whole screen to be 1 view, for virtual cockpit. I don't like 2D panels, so docking is not an option for me (I mean it's pretty obvious from the title of the thread but just wanted to make sure).Thanks.

On top of that, a 750W PSU is highly unlikely to be enough for an overclock i7, you'd need at least a 1000W, at least with that 295 GTX, that's another $300+.Regards,

I won't say anything in detail about everything you mentioned except "frying" things. I am not "OC nerd", I don't have pipes coming out of my tower or nitrogen containers everywhere. All I have is a thermalright ultra extreme heatsink and 2 x 120mm fans (i dont even know their brand). I have a Q6600, and I have it running at 3.6 Ghz. That's %50 overclock. I have had it running like this constantly for more than 2 years now (last july was 2nd year anniversery). I also have a 8800 GTX which I am overclocking to 621/1011/2022. Again, my RAM, which is originally a 800 Mhz DDR2 Crucial Ballistix, I overclock it to 1033 Mhz, that's %25 overclock. This entire system did not have a single hardware failure for more than 2 years. I did not do anything special, all I did was to go into the BIOS, change the frequencies. These hardware parts are so advanced, even if you wanted to "fry" them, you wouldn't be able to. During my initial overclock testing, I tried up to 4.0 Ghz, over 1.6V for the CPU. Nothing happened, worst, the PC would just freeze, you do a CMOS reset, and that's it. In my opinion, do not WASTE (I am writing with capital letters because it is a big amount of waste) money on 950, do not get anything more than 920. In fact, if I were you, I'd get a Q9650, not waste money on i7 because it has minimal gains on top of the Q series. The only gain comes in the form of a higher memory bandwidth which comes from the DDR3, it's not directly related to i7. If you were to take a 920 and overclock it to 3.6 and take Q6600 or Q9650 and overclock it to 3.6, with the same amount of RAM, the difference would be no more than 2-5 fps at best. This considers you will have the rest of your setup of course, a decent hard drive and video card, and so on.Regards,