3 monitors (surround gaming) or one big monitor?

[RipChord929]

Hot Damn, that looks REALLY good conan!   Best of both!!
I think I'd go for the panoramic horizontal view tho, so it includes peripheral vision as well...
(thats prob what causes that sick feeling) A little vertigo workin between your eye/inner ear, LOL!!!  I'd love it!!!

All good setups... LOL, impressive what ppl will do for this game huh?

RC

[33Vortex]

All good setups... LOL, impressive what ppl will do for this game huh?

To some it's more than a game, it's part of a life-long passion for flight that runs deeper than anything else.

 

[Conan]

To give you an idea of the different feel you get with portrait vs. landscape here's three screen shots:


Standard 30" Widescreen 2560x1600, 100 field of view set.



3 X 30" Widescreen portrait 5000x2560, 111 field of view set.



3 X 30" Widescreen landscape 7880x1600, 145 field of view set.

[33Vortex]

The top one would be my current view. The last one is just sick with that resolution! The middle one seem to offer more of a 16:9 ratio than 16:10, which is kinda nice. Also the resolution you get from the 5000x2560 setup should be closer to lifelike detail than anything else available. Of course the render detail range is still what visual information you get.

Thanks for the pics, helps with getting a perspective on it so to speak.

[Kazaa]

Having played flight sims online for over 10 years, I've played on most resolutions from 1024x768 and up. The most bang for the buck you can get with a 1920x1200 screen imo typically on a 24" widescreen (16:10) LED. It's a nice resolution which will give you a little more than a larger +30" TV screen which is typically 1920x1080 (HD).

Currently I'm using a 30" LED on a resolution of 2560x1600 and I gotta tell you, nothing beat that for clarity. It is still a fairly big screen comparable to a 30" TV, but with considerably higher resolution than the HD standard of 1920x1080. The level of detail is simply stunning, and you will be able to read the movement of objects (typically aircraft in a flight sim) instantly.

A good 30" 2560x1600 display will cost you a little more than a 3-screen setup including a matrox triplehead2go, but is worth it if you ask me. Whether you prefer 3 x 1680x1050 screens or a single 2560x1600 monitor is totally up to you. I've not tested the triple screen setup so can't honestly say I know the difference, but can imagine the level of immersion from the much wider perspective must be quite something. You will get a impression of speed, especially at low level, that is impossible without the side panels. I opted for maximum detail and image quality, something I do not regret but I don't think you'll regret either option whichever you choose.

Keep in mind though, a big screen does not mean better image quality.

Here is a example of what 2560x1600 looks like. At 59-60 fps it doesn't get any better than this.

download link: http://www.mediafire.com/?k2mdmjyttgv



Image:
(Image removed from quote.)

2560x1600 is a little overkill for todays gamer market.

[33Vortex]

2560x1600 is a little overkill for todays gamer market.

The game developers are nowadays usuallly supporting 1920x1200, but beyond that it's a hit or miss kinda thing. Some games support higher resolutions while others don't. It should be up to the end customer to decide what he want for hardware and gfx resolution, so I think they should leave it more open ended and at least support custom resolutions. AH does, and that is a good move.

[Vulcan]

Ok I misinterpreted as VR, 1600 is decent but the 600 vertical line kinda screw it. I bet it's immersive but my main concern is image quality, primarily resolution. Doesn't stereo 3D require panels capable of 100 Hz or something? If so that rules out about 99% of the flatpanels on the market.

Good stereo requires 120Hz, and there are many coming out as there is a big push towards consumer stereo 3d equipment.

The VR side.... the display is like a having a 60" monitor a couple of feet away. IMHO having stereo 3d makes up for the higher resolution. Depth makes more of a difference than smoother lines. And the head tracking with the screens on your face.... well who cares if its landscape or portrait, wherever I look I see AH

[ebfd11]

I run dual 9800 gtx + sli'd on a 26 hdtv with the hdmi cable. Love it piture quality is awesome. But that's my personal opinion,

[skribetm]

Good stereo requires 120Hz, and there are many coming out as there is a big push towards consumer stereo 3d equipment.

The VR side.... the display is like a having a 60" monitor a couple of feet away. IMHO having stereo 3d makes up for the higher resolution. Depth makes more of a difference than smoother lines. And the head tracking with the screens on your face.... well who cares if its landscape or portrait, wherever I look I see AH

that VR thing is awesome, and more economically feasible for me than triple or hex monitors on the ati eyefinity cards. thanks for sharing. 

[boomerlu]

Since the human eye is capable of seeing at vastly greater resolution than any human-made computer graphics monitor is capable of, the brain is always lacking visual information compared to what would be available if it was a real situation. So to compensate for that we have the tags, to make it easier to identify planes at range (as well as judge the distance) because it's simply not possible through the computer interface to see what irl would have been identified as friend/foe. Resolution is the #1 factor when it comes to shooting accuracy.

Yup, that's why if I absolutely had to choose, I'd go with the bigger monitor. The advantage isn't even limited to shooting accuracy - the more details you can make out about the enemy aircraft's position, the better you are equipped to make smart ACM decisions. It is why good eyesight is so highly valued for real fighter pilots, and unfortunately why I had to give up on that idea at an early age (I have pretty bad eyesight).

[DAVENRINO]

No complaints with 60" monitor @ 8'.  Started using 50" monitor bout 6 years ago, then 58" and 60" last 2 years.

[Spite]

Yup, that's why if I absolutely had to choose, I'd go with the bigger monitor. The advantage isn't even limited to shooting accuracy - the more details you can make out about the enemy aircraft's position, the better you are equipped to make smart ACM decisions. It is why good eyesight is so highly valued for real fighter pilots ...

Fine.  Where as ... tried my current monitor at 1600 x 1200 for a goodly while ... and just recently went back to 1280 x 1024.  The teeny weeny dots weren't doing it for me.  Give me what I have now times THREE and that would be GOLD!  That final image from 33Vortex is exactly what I'm looking for.  Played for awhile on my 50 in Plasma at 1360 x 768, (the max useable res it supports), and while beautiful, the height isn't enough.  Not even remotely convinced that 2560 x 1600 will give me what I need. Keep your 30 in displays, ... give me 3 at a useable res and half the price for Aces High.

[CRYPTIC]

A new web site 1 screen instead of three. This is one curved screen done with projectors with this software.http://nthusim.com/

[Kazaa]

Just wait for OLED's displays to hit the consumer market, with OLED it's possible to form of a single curved-widescreen display with breathtaking picture quality. Give it another 5 years though.

[RipChord929]

I just upgraded all my equipment about a yr and a half ago.. Another 3 1/2 yrs will be about time to do it again.. Since upgrading various peices of hardware, I havent really paid much attn to them since. But have been hearing little bits about OLED, Flexible screens, dome shaped screens, and 3D for the home consumer market.  Sounds like some kind of miniature IMAX theater in your living room.. If that is the video future, holy smokes!  Just make sure to Keep the barf bag handy!

RC