Can someone give me hope?

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by CharveL

Neuro is right technically on that point but the simple fact is there is three times the work to be done by one video card so even a "low" resolution for a three monitor setup is still comparatively higher than a single monitor setup at native res.

Point being I think that you are asking a bit much trying to run at your native (3x) resolution with the game in it's current state.

I'm really big on a min framerate of over 30 and 60+ avg to enjoy a game but it's tough for me to let go of those cockpit shadows to save FPS from having it on the trees and buildings.

Yes his pictures are pretty is all. His video card is displaying 3 monitors each with 800x600 resoulution. This is in fact 800 x3 = 2400 plus 600 x 3 =1800.
which is an effective 2400 x1800 pixels equivalent. Each monitor is doing 480,000 pixels X 3 = 1,440,000 pixels which is nowhere near low resolution for one video card.

[tf_neuro]

I give up.
You can't fix stupid...

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by tf_neuro

I give up.
You can't fix stupid...

Yes your broken.

Go back and take some basic math courses. Or if you like I could teach you how to multiply.

Heres one 800x600= ???? Answer 480,000 Now multiply that by 3 (3 monitors) gives 1,440,000.
Now if we try and extrapolate that to approximate a single screen with a ratio (16:9 widescreen) that give roughly 1600X900 effective screen resolution. This is by no means "low" as normal high definition is about 1024x760 (720P).

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Yes his pictures are pretty is all. His video card is displaying 3 monitors each with 800x600 resoulution. This is in fact 800 x3 = 2400 plus 600 x 3 =1800.
which is an effective 2400 x1800 pixels equivalent. Each monitor is doing 480,000 pixels X 3 = 1,440,000 pixels which is nowhere near low resolution for one video card.

I am not good in maths Oldschool but, why is i 2400x1800 equivalent? (2400x1800= 4,320,000 pixels).

He only runs it at 3x480,000 = 1,440,000 pixels

RGDS,

Athos

[tf_neuro]

Yes your broken.

Yes. My broken... what? My broken game? My broken uh... spheres?

Heres one 800x600= ???? Answer 480,000 Now multiply that by 3 (3 monitors) gives 1,440,000

So far so good.
Now do 2400*1800. Does it make 1,440,000? Or is it 3x that much? Have you asked yourself why?


(I'm off to sign a petition to give all teachers a raise. I know they deserve it)

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by tf_neuro

Yes. My broken... what? My broken game? My broken uh... spheres?


So far so good.
Now do 2400*1800. Does it make 1,440,000? Or is it 3x that much? Have you asked yourself why?


(I'm off to sign a petition to give all teachers a raise. I know they deserve it)

Do you just pull randoms numbers out of your bum??

[TonyD]

I hope I don't regret getting involved in this, but here goes anyway ...

Sorry Odlschool, but neuro is correct. Your calculation of 3 x (800 x 600), which totals 1 440 000, is correct, but is not equal to (3 x 800) x (3 x 600) which totals 4 320 000 pixels, which equals 9 x (800 x 600).

This is a single picture being rendered across 3 monitors, with a height of 600 and a width of 2400 (3 x 800). The total number of pixels being rendered in this picture is 600 x 2400 (total height x total width), which equates to 1 440 000 pixels. This is close to 1280 x 1024 (1 310 720 pixels), and quite a bit less than 1920 x 1080 (2 073 600 pixels).

Hope this helps

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by TonyD

I hope I don't regret getting involved in this, but here goes anyway ...



This is a single picture being rendered across 3 monitors, with a height of 600 and a width of 2400 (3 x 800). The total number of pixels being rendered in this picture is 600 x 2400 (total height x total width), which equates to 1 440 000 pixels. This is close to 1280 x 1024 (1 310 720 pixels), and quite a bit less than 1920 x 1080 (2 073 600 pixels).

Hope this helps

Uh thats what I said... its actual 1600x900 pixels equivalents which =1.44 million pixels which isnt near the same as 800x600 performance wise. everyone keeps misunderstanding the values

3 800x600 is roughly equal to one 1600x900 monitor as far as video card is concerned,

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

...

3 800x600 is roughly equal to one 1600x900 monitor as far as video card is concerned,

True, but most modern graphics cards can handle that quite easily, can't they? I'm running 1080p on medium settings with shadows enabled at a playable frame rate, which may or may not be considered a 'high' resolution, depending on your point of view. Most test sites (eg, Tom's) refer to high resolution as 2560 x 1600, which is nearly 3 1600 x 900.

But anyway, I get your point.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by TonyD

True, but most modern graphics cards can handle that quite easily, can't they? I'm running 1080p on medium settings with shadows enabled at a playable frame rate, which may or may not be considered a 'high' resolution, depending on your point of view. Most test sites (eg, Tom's) refer to high resolution as 2560 x 1600, which is nearly 3 1600 x 900.

But anyway, I get your point.

True, and you also probably have patches which make the game more playable which wasn't the case when this whole discussion started.