Some questions about a system for FSX?

[snippyfsxer]

[quote]
I also read your last reply to me before you removed it. What did you call me - I believe it was diabolical fiend or something like that.

[Flight Ace]

Yes, I agree, don't lock the thread.

I was doing some research today and found some interesting information which resolves any issues I have had with how the resolution is given for a three monitor FSX configuration.

Here it is right out of the textbook.

I have 3 19inch 1280x960 monitor screens. My video card throws 3 images (each at 1280x960 resolution sized at 500 pixels) one to each screen. Each image will take up the same space, be the same size and appear the same on all three monitors. If you measure the resolution, it will be at the resolution of each monitor. If I run a resolution of 1280x960 on three different size monitors, each processing the same 500 pixel image, the physical image size will be different on each monitor, the space they consume will be different but the resolution stays the same. If I change the resolution of one monitor leaving the other two with parameters unchanged, then if the resolution increased, the 500 pixel image would decrease in physical size, if the resolution was decreased the pixel image physical size would increase. Finally, the total number of pixels from the three monitors is found by summing the pixels from each monitor.

Now if my video card throws one 1500 pixel image making up the FSX front, left, and right views and spreads them across three 1280x960 monitors, in order to maintain the same quality image as the 500 pixel image had on one monitor it would need a resolution of 3840x960. I believe that is what is being done by the Matrox triplehead2GO or other similar systems, and as I found out in my research today, : why it is probably advertised that way.

But remember, I am not an expert in this subject, the textbook could be wrong, and I am really looking

[Slotback]

to the op:

The system sounds good. imo, try to get a GTX 460 1gb that is also factory overclocked to around 850mhz. It is 26% faster than a normal GTX 460 and reaches performance levels of the GTX 470.

example:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814130575

[JBaymore]

[quote] I am piecing together a system specifically for FSX, but my son will likely want to do some gaming on it as well.

[Flight Ace]

[quote] I am piecing together a system specifically for FSX, but my son will likely want to do some gaming on it as well.

[snippyfsxer]

If he is flying GA planes, the performance impact will be "minimal", but only in the sense that anything over 30fps is gravy anyway, IMO. If he ever wants to fly the Concorde from Heathrow, in the rain, with addon scenery, that is another matter; Depending on how good he feels about optimizing and/or backing off his sliders a notch or two, and what scenery/traffic addons he intends to run could make all the difference in the world as to whether he decides to go single monitor or multi-monitor.

[Flight Ace]

I made a statement in my previous post that "from what I have read, running three monitors as compared to one, you will see little difference in performance".

Since then, I have done some more reviews from different forums and apparently this is not true. A number of people have indicated major hits in performance from switching from one or two monitors to three. This is right in line with snippyfsxer's point that when running large commercial aircraft, like the Concord, and in an area like Heathroe in the rain with various add-on software, you would need to back off the sliders a notch or two. Some of the forum articles indicated significant lowering of sliders, however I was not sure of their PC architecture. If nothing else, thess comments raise the question just how well does a high end PC three monitor system running near or above 4GHz compare to a high end one monitor system in the environment described above. The best way is to make a comparison. To aid in this i am including the following four screens from my one monitor rig covering Heathrow and the London area in weather.

Starting roll from runway 27 right at

[snippyfsxer]

Despite my obsolete signature specs, my machine is now a 980x clocked at approx 4.4ghz.

[Flight Ace]

The screenshots you provided do not give your 3 monitor architecture justice when it comes to showing how it enhances widening the view. You provided a much better screen (inside the cockpit) with a previous post that shows well that wrap around internal cockpit view as well as extended external scenery. And of course you get the same kind of extended viewing when the camera is on the outside. What is there not to like?

https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 844521.jpg

I am still in the process of reviewing a number of different architectures and software that may eventually lead me to adding more (one or two) monitors. When, and if I do, I will use identical 26 inch SAMSUNG monitors like the one I am currently using. Further, I have to assure myself that I will not degrade the performance I am currently getting now from my one monitor. For example, flying over Chicago, Illinois or Manhatton, New York with a smooth flight (20 to 35FPS) with their full compliment of buildings, scenery and heavy aircraft density.

https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 896877.jpg

https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 868856.jpg

https://www.simviation.com/phpupload/upl ... 822991.jpg

One last note. The RAM I have been using in my current PC (Assembled over a year ago) is CL9 Corsair. I could not have asked for better performance. I recently noticed that Mushkin CL6 RAM is on sale at Newegg and have purchased 6 GBs. I should be receiving it in a few days and will report back the effect it has on my FSX performance and over-clocking. Currently my CL9 Corsair RAM, when measured by the Windows Experience Index assessment from a scale of 1.0 to 7.9 is assessed at 7.8.

[snippyfsxer]

Now for the down side of all of this.

I really doubt that you will get comparable frame rates on a 3 screen system at those levels of detail over heavy scenery like that, in a big Payware jet.

My current settings are 8x AA, 16x AF, Scenery/Autogen at Very Dense (one notch off max), no building shadows, no self shadows, no bloom, water 2x low, traffic settings so that approximately 50-75% of the gates at a big airport are filled, 0-10% road traffic depending on plane.

[Flight Ace]

Now that I have received and installed my new Mushkin CL6 RAM, how does it compare to the CL9 RAM previously installed?

Over-clocking:

Before installing the new RAM, I was able to over-clock to a stable 3.82 MHz. With the new RAM, I increased the over-clocking to a stable 3.88 MHz. This is about the best I can do with my i7 920 chip.

Performance as measured by the Windows Experience Index Assessment:

Assessments of key components are assessed on a scale of 1.0 to 7.9. Both the CL9 and CL6 RAM were assessed at 7.8.

Did FSX appear or perform any better with the new RAM?

I experience the same smooth flight conditions but thought the graphics painting was a little faster and some ground apperances were more pronounced. For example roads and railroad tracks appear with no abrupt changes in their direction or elevation. Lanes (1, 2, 3, or 4)in a highway are clearly shown with ongoing traffic and if on the side of a hill the road is not distorted or lopsided.

In Short.

1.