What looks best for IL2 (& therefore SoW) - 3 22" screens, or 1 27"?

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

I've been on youtube searching for eyefinity IL2 this morning, and came up short. I saw a lot of Dirt2 demos though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDu9NZHkRUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1NE8n42EQA

Originally Posted by lbuchele

I have a 26'' Acer and is pretty good...
Three 22" I don´t know.
You will have 5760x3060 resolution.People who has three monitors use to have 2 or 3 SLI setup and this is $erious business...

A squadmate is running 3x22" monitors on a single 5850 in eyefinity. Depending on the card model ofc the main reason to why most Nvidia guys run 2-3cards in multi screen setups are mostly the lack of outputs. Even a GTX260(which is still a good card) can run triple monitors alone with a TH2Go set. It's when you start messing with multi-24"> @ 1920x1200/1080 each, that things start to get really demanding.

Ofcourse, it's never wrong to have the extra horsepower but what you really need and what people think you need are often two different things.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by lbuchele

I have a 26'' Acer and is pretty good...
Three 22" I don´t know.
You will have 5760x3060 resolution.People who has three monitors use to have 2 or 3 SLI setup and this is $erious business...

3 22" (at 1680x1050) would be 5040 x 1050. I believe it requires about double the GC power of a standard screen. Depending on what SoW needs, it's not out of the question.

Originally Posted by kimosabi

A squadmate is running 3x22" monitors on a single 5850 in eyefinity.

No doubt SoW will be very demanding, and it might require SLi/CF to run 3 screens, we'll see. But I thought this would be a good place to see how people have found the comparison between a large screen and 3 smaller screens. Thanks for those links - I watched the second one this morning, but it didn't show any in cockpit footage which is what I'm after. The other one is useful, and it seems there are more like that, I'll check them out.

Ofcourse, it's never wrong to have the extra horsepower but what you really need and what people think you need are often two different things.

Well obviously we don't need these things

[kimosabi]

*to run it.

[Les]

I'm running a 27" monitor and haven't gone over to an eyefinity setup. Mainly because it would require using three 27" monitors for me to see enough of a visual improvement over what I've got to make it worthwhile. And even then it wouldn't be worthwhile because I'd have to spend a fortune on not just the monitors (even if I could find ones to match what I've got) but also on an SLI or Crossfire solution to give me (maybe) the framerates I'd want at that combined resolution.

I have no doubt it would be more immersive than what I've got, bezels and all, but I just can't justify the expense as I'm not that much of an enthusiast.

Three 22" monitors in portrait mode would be bigger than one 27" monitor, but it wouldn't be an amazing difference, and I'd have the bezel issue to deal with, and it's possible, depending on what frame-rates and image quality I wanted, that even three 22" monitors might tip me over that point where I require a multi-card setup.

Three 22" monitors in landscape mode (whose overall width would be just over double that of a 27" monitor) would give me a lot more peripheral vision on the sides (which could lead to complications in itself), but the vertical height would actually be less than what I'm already getting with a 27" monitor, resulting in an overall look that I just don't think I'd like. It could also require a multi-card setup, and...all in all, in terms of complications and costs (actual and potential), I just couldn't be @#!%ed.

Thinking about it, by the time graphics power and overall display resolutions increase to the point where I don't even think twice about jumping on board, because the immersion's so much better and the price is low enough, this 27" will have to look like what a 17" monitor looks like now in comparison. Which could be more than ten years from now at the current rate the technology is being trickle fed to us plebs...

Sorry, going all tangential again.

A single 27" monitor would be better IMO.

But having said that, I also highly recommend cutting out some cardboard, one 27" monitor size, and one 3x22" monitor size (bezel spaces included), and supporting them on your desk to actually see what it is you're dealing with.

Interestingly enough, looking at those distances here myself, they pretty much correspond to the same amount of head movement I use while using TrackIR. I think, for immersion, if I had multi-screens, I'd want to have to look further than that, ie. I'd have to turn my head more than 45 degrees before the TrackIR started to have to move the image for me. Not sure 3x22" would be wide enough for that.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Les

I'm running a 27" monitor and haven't gone over to an eyefinity setup. Mainly because it would require using three 27" monitors for me to see enough of a visual improvement over what I've got to make it worthwhile.

If I already had a 27" monitor, I wouldn't be asking the question, I'd stick with a single 27" (another 2 27" and GCs required at this point would cost too much for me). And if I had 3 22" monitors, I'd stick with that. Hoever, I have 1 22" now, so it's either buy 2 more, or buy a 27" - allowing a little more graphical power for the three 22" set-up, the total cost will be about the same for me.

Three 22" monitors in landscape mode (whose overall width would be just over double that of a 27" monitor) would give me a lot more peripheral vision on the sides (which could lead to complications in itself), but the vertical height would actually be less than what I'm already getting with a 27" monitor, resulting in an overall look that I just don't think I'd like.

If I went for 3 22", it would be in landscape mode, and I'm sure I'd like it (doesn't seem to be a problem with the examples on youtube), but whether it's better than a single 27" I'm not sure

But having said that, I also highly recommend cutting out some cardboard, one 27" monitor size, and one 3x22" monitor size. Interestingly enough, looking at those distances here myself, they pretty much correspond to the same amount of head movement I use while using TrackIR.

The difficulty I'm having is comparing the two options specifically from the in cockpit perspective. I'd love the width of 3 22", as it allows you to use your peripheral vision without having to keep moving your head left/right, as with trackIR (which I'll also be using). But I'd also love a bit more height too, hence the dilema. If my main game was a car racing game, it would be 3 22", without doubt - perfect. But in my Spit I need to keep looking up for them bad guys.

I'm really not sure what's best, so I might just get a 6970 (if it's not too pricey), get the game, find out my FPS on 1 22" and then see what my options are.

[TeeJay82]

ill take One 27 in 1900*1200" over 3 22 1900*1080" any day

[maclean525]

You know you hear a lot of "I don't think 3 screens would be better" what you never hear, however, is someone with three screens saying that a single screen is better

Bottom line, once you go three screens you will never, ever go back to single screen. It is so much better words don't even come close to describing it.

I have three 23" Dell monitors with the sides arranged at 45 degrees. I sit 24" from the middle screen and the two side monitors are very close to filling my peripheral vision.

[BigC208]

I just ordered new parts for a computer with a 980x and 3 gtx580 for multimonitor simming. Right now I have 3x22 screens and am contemplating 3x27,1080p or 3x30. 3x27,1080p makes more sense financially and it pushes less pixels. On the other hand monitors last a long time. Good chance that the next generation graphics cards will run 3x30 at 2560 by 1600 without any hiccups. It also looks like 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors are not going to get below $1000 any time soon so they keep their value long term. I've seen a guy on the simhq forum that runs 3x30 monitors with gtx580 dualsli in portrait mode. If his setup runs CoD ok I'll go that way. Otherwise I'll go 3x27 in portrait mode. No need to spend $3500 for a CoD slide show.

If I were you though (budget wise) I would just get 2 more 22 inch screens and run it of one 6970. Cheapest solution. My 3x22 1680x1050 monitors are pretty imersive. Let me give you one advice. See if if you find someone with a multimonitor setup and fly RoF or Il2 for a while with track ir. Been reading a lot about people with motion sickness issues... My wife just gets sick standing behind me in RoF dogfighting on 3 monitors and track ir. I myself had to get used to it. Using also trackir I had to slow down my headmovements. If I need to look 90 degrees left I just glance left to my angled left monitor and only slightly move my head with track ir. Big movements off the normal axis feel unatural. This also happens on a single screen but really gets amplified on a multimonitor setup.

[wannabetheace]

better consider this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yT6O...eature=related

[JAMF]

Oh dear, not the Ostendo CRVD or Alienware 2880 x 900 rear-projected DLP screens. The resolution is too low.

I'm using 1x 23" displays as centre and 2x 23.6" side displays. The view is great and TrackIR solves the look-up 'problem'. The TrackIR view-change left/right in game I could cut in half and use the corner of my eye, as it were... much more realistic.

3x1920x1200 would be better that the 1080 ones. A dream is projectors, of course. One could start wit 2, as matching the edge of the projected images together is possible, unlike 2 monitors.