denali

I have been saying this for almost a decade. There is a bottleneck somewhere between 4.5 and 4.8 ghz in the esp architecture. It may not be a fsx p3d issue. But a window fiber management issue i once believed they would fix with windows 10 and offer in dx upgrades.

Wasn't sure where to put this, but some of you may want to know this. I saw it here at arstechnica.com http://arstechnica.com/staff/2016/05/dealmaster-get-a-vizio-4k-smart-tv-and-a-200-dell-gift-card-for-549/ And a direct link to the deal: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=A8620045&dgc=BA&cid=299605&lid=5718620&acd=123092226603601168c94940922&ven3=813203139843088642 No time for me to read closely to find if it is a decent screen. And I wonder if you could do 2 of those deals, use the 2 gift cards to buy a 3rd on the same deal ... ? (for triple monitor fun)

Bill Gates didn't really have that much imagination back then.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/private-jets-get-door-sized-windows-always-needed/

Nikola, You have a great product. I even recommended it to someone just last night that asked me if my thing would help them with a projected image on a dome issue. I do believe your software is exactly what people need in that situation. And I will not argue with you that much that you have a solution often taken by programs like assetto corsa for flat LC Displays and it is effective. You have worked hard in your software to present a solution. A very pricey one, but also a functional one. Where for projected displays your product is very worthy, but as for an LCD solution I do not think it is fair for you to charge it as a bundled price, as you do, e.i. you must purchase your flagship product at it's premium price. However, that is not up to me, but the markets. And again, if you did not use the math that I have published, you are not getting a 100% geometrically correct solution. Not even "when you put yourself at the designed eyepoint". Your claim is false.

NOT "100% Geometrically Correct". Stretching is still visible in the peripheries of each view. You are only minimizing it's presence with individual views.

If N is claiming that there is "no distortion" or "100% geometrically correct", then there is only one way to achieve that. That way is using the same math I used in my algorithm. The disturbing part to me is that I am aware of discussions between N and one of my alpha testers 9 months or so before N, after his wide search for a solution, shows up here and says he solved the problem first. The alpha tester showed me N's original products and we tinkered with it for due diligence, asking "did they solve the problem" (which I had solved 2 years prior and published). The alpha tester actively communicated with N for that purpose, because of the alpha's passion and interest in the problem is like mine. Then magically N has a "never before done" solution, where he would have to use the math, and argues with me *in my own product thread* that he didn't use the same math, that it is mathematically impossible. Now I'm not planning on having Senatorial hearings nor having my former partner testifying as he did before the Nuclear Regulatory Committee about safety and security in nuclear power plant software. And Synchronicity is just as common as De Ja Vu in this industry. But it would just be nice for N to acknowledge even that his is not the very first software to use programmatic lensing for this display problem. Or admit that his is the solution that is "not geometrically correct" if it does not use the same math. I bring up my partner because after not having talked to him in many years, while were both trying to get out of a creatively stifling and financially limiting field, we both have had the same experiences and concerns practicing "in the wild" where your security clearance no longer protects your work. He joked there should be a hearing on this. (I am nowhere near as qualified as he is, I did not graduate near the top of my class at MIT. I stayed a few nights in Boston at a Sheraton once though.)

In one place you say it isn't possible. In another you say it is, but it's a secret. You have me so confused! But the math is brutally honest. I like Milkshakes too. I know where to get them far cheaper.

But you are saying this is not possible mathematically through more than one display? That is exactly what my algorithm in the other thread does. It is limited by Prepar3d's FOV limit, but if you use multiple monitors spanning up to about 155 degrees you can achieve it in one graphical view spanning 3 displays. There is no bezel adjustment at this moment, no precise accounting for the angle of the monitors relative to each other, but that can factored into the algorithm. If you wish to go further than the limit of 179 degree limit imposed by Prepar3d you will need another graphical view. But that is easily accomplished by opening another view in Prepar3d. I cannot see how you could accomplish perfect geometry unless you used the algorithm I wrote, or rather the math I used, and published in this and Prepar3d's forum about 2 years ago. Can you please explain how your method is different, how specifically you achieved perfect geometry, regardless of whether it is over one display or multiple displays?

Does this correct the stretching that you find at the edge of a wide display? Specifically, does an object in the center of a display maintain the same pixels, same dimensions in pixel height and width, as the view is panned and the object moves to the edge of the display?

No. You will hit the CPU clock with Flight Simulation. Most games have nowhere near the scope of computations to do as a simulator has. Because they can, in fact, pick and choose what parts of reality to render, exploiting the next shiny thing that comes along for the story line. In flight simulation, especially with us whiny types, it's demanded to be as real as it gets as far as the eye can see, and as far as the plane can pretend to feel the wind on it's wings. Even in the sense of multi-player, each AI a/c is the same as another player functionally, the computational demands are not the same as gaming ai, where a script controls the timing. They're structurally more like pvp demands than pipelined ai of other games. Comparing apples to oranges. Remember, LM's pvp is not for gaming. P3D, like FSX is not a game, them's fightin' werds.

Ok, looking at this again, it could be pretty nice. I don't know if an application has to be written to work, but it looks like it also takes into account the angle of the monitors. The display comes out much as if you are in the middle of a bay window. It also does not appear to have a curvature of the earth on the horizon line as my current algorithm does. Nice! I'm still going to finish out my project eventually in case we'd have to wait for LM to write in that functionality for P3D. OK, so the number of viewports, stil along a binary 2 4 8 16 32 etc line, is 16. 16. http://www.ubergizmo.com/2016/05/nvidia-simultaneous-multi-projection/

Actually, they're my heros. What they're doing is like trying to tame a 10 armed sea monster. We are two of those arms, heh. I'm sticking with my 2 GTX 780 SCX's for about a year moar. I really need a CPU I can OC over 5ghz, maybe a few moar cores, and MS to truly open up their DX12 fiber fixes, before I can justify moar GPU.