Three Monitor Setup

[SlipKnt]

I have decided to not go VR and am choosing to get a 3 monitor setup.

There is a 32" curved gaming monitor I found that should do what I need it to do (75hz (any over 60 isn't needed, right), 1080HD).

So given that, I have never ever set up multi monitors before.  I have worked on them (2 monitor systems) in the past.

The question or two or many that I have...

1.  Any software I need to run 3 monitors?
2.  Anything weird or special I need to do to ensure proper operations when I load AH3?
3.  How would this effect the graph card? 

Appreciate any information. 

Thanks in advance.

 

[FLS]

Three monitors are easy to set up. I don't recommend triple monitors for flying because the aspect ratio favors the horizontal and air combat uses vertical views. Triple monitors are better for racing sims.

If you don't want VR, which puts you "inside" your aircraft, you're better off with a single large monitor.

Three 32" monitors would not work well. The aspect ratio would be worse than 3 normal monitors.

A refresh rate of 120 is noticeably better than 60.

I have a cheap 4k 55" TV that works well with AH. I prefer it to my triple screen setup but it's not as good as VR.

[Bizman]

any over 60 isn't needed, right

not exactly. 60 is where our brain is fooled well enough to consider subsequent images as a fluid non-stop flow, but as you know, real life has no frame limits. Our eyes can see and our brains can handle an ongoing stream of moving things no matter how fast they go. You can easily follow a tennis ball bouncing 150 mph without getting a feeling of it being teleported from one end to another, as well as a jet breaking the sound barrier. Faster monitors make movements look more fluent and life-like.

1. no, Windows is enough given your video card has three outputs.
2. For a three monitor AH experience you'll have to set the video settings accordingly. If you use 1080p monitors in the normal position, the resolution for AH has to be determined to (3x1920)x1080, i.e. 5760x1080. If you turn them on the narrow side, you can set the resolution to (3x1080)x1920 i.e. 3240x1920. That would solve the issue with the aspect ratio FLS mentioned.
3. multiplying the amount of monitors will multiply the load by the same amount. Same goes for adding to the refresh rate. Three monitors is three times the load of one of the same kind. If you currently can get a solid 3x75=225 fps with vertical sync off (for testing purposes only) on a single 1080p monitor @ 75 Hz, then you should get a solid 75 fps using three similar ones.

[FLS]

I have used triple monitors in portrait mode, I don't recommend it. You're better off with one big monitor and no bezels.

[Bizman]

I have used triple monitors in portrait mode, I don't recommend it. You're better off with one big monitor and no bezels.

There was someone who used five monitors in portrait mode. I agree that the bezels can get in the way. Also, as an example of the calculations in my previous post, three 1080p monitors @ 75 Hz will stress the video card roughly as much as a 4K monitor. I just saw a TV ad about a 70" one... Size doesn't matter, the amount of pixels and the speed they're being redrawn do. Do your math: resolution (x the amount of monitors) x refresh rate gives you a value. The higher that number, the more stress to your video card.

[FESS67]

I agree with FLS.  I had 3 monitors for a long time which I used for iRacing.  I tried with AH but it just did not work for me either landscape or portrait.  I used to just use the centre monitor when I flew.

[1stpar3]

While it is NOT as awesome as VR(I love it, some dont). TrackIR is a way cheaper alternative...and really negates the need for 3 monitor set up...well depends on why you need 3 monitors...   You get all the visual benefits with TIR, and dont have to do without the clarity of the graphics with VR. IF you go with TIR...SPEND THE EXTRA on the Track Clip Pro. Much better than the default Hat Clip. Think under 175.00? If I recall

[BowHTR]

I run triple monitors and have even used TrackIR with triple monitors. It was fun to use if you have the monitors adjusted correctly. I ended up swapping back to 1 gaming monitor at 1440p & 144Hz and the other 2 for other applications, as it was better for recording versus all 3 monitors.

[SlipKnt]

I am currently using a 42" 720.  It gets the job done but I am looking to enhance the visual experience. 

So using a larger monitor with the 1080hd and 120 refresh rate is ideal. 

However it sounds like I need a top of the line card for all of the candy. 

I appreciate all of the info.

What are y'alls thoughts on LCD vs. LED? 

I just want to get it right this time around. 

[FLS]

What video card do you have and how close do you sit to your monitor?

[Bizman]

1280*720*60=55296000, 1920*1080*120=248832000. That's exactly 4.5x the load.

So if your current video card gives you a solid 60 fps on the 720p you should get a solid 270 with V-sync off. Assuming there's no other variables in the calculations that should equal 120 fps on the 1080p 120 Hz monitor you're dreaming of.

[mikeWe9a]

1280*720*60=55296000, 1920*1080*120=248832000. That's exactly 4.5x the load.

So if your current video card gives you a solid 60 fps on the 720p you should get a solid 270 with V-sync off. Assuming there's no other variables in the calculations that should equal 120 fps on the 1080p 120 Hz monitor you're dreaming of.

Biz, you're multiplying instead of dividing.  The 1080 monitor pushes more pixels, so will have a lower frame rate.  It won't be 4.5 times lower, because doubling the refresh rate of the monitor won't halve the frame rate, although it will require twice the pixels to update the frame for each separate refresh of the monitor.  The nominal decrease in speed would be 2.25x, though if he's getting exactly the current refresh rate of the monitor then his card is almost certainly pushing more than 60 frames per second, so you'd be dividing an unknown, higher initial frame rate.

Mike

[FLS]

2460X1440 will look better than 1920X1080 with a larger screen.  Monitor distance and preferred FOV will suggest an optimal size, then budget can determine additional features.

Btw I meant to write 144Hz not 120, but 60Hz will work, it's what most of us have always used.

Mike I think Biz is saying that unknown number should be 270.

It occurs to me that going from a 720p 42" screen to VR you wouldn't be likely to complain about the resolution. 

[Bizman]

Mike, yes, I'm multiplying. 1080p @120 Hz is 4.5x the load compared to a 720p @ 60 Hz. You're right that 1080 has more pixels but the frame rate is dependent of the video card. You're also right in that if only the resolution was increased, the load would add 2.25x.

If the video card could do 270 fps on the current monitor, that would indicate that 120 fps on a 1080p monitor might be possible. If the video card can't do that, it will be too weak for the higher amount of pixels at double speed. Equally, if the current system could do 135, it should be able to do 60 fps on a 1080p.

[lunaticfringe]

I now have a headache