Can someone give me hope?

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by tf_neuro

Oh look! We have Albert Fokk'n Einstein, here. Steve Fokk'n Hawking, even!
Listen buddy, you got it wrong right from the start.

Where you got the 7200 from? When did I say 2400x600 x3 monitors?!?. What I said was 2400x600 = 800x600 x3 monitors!




@Athos im not boasing anything. This whole discussion spawned from a misunderstanding (see above).
Also, CoD doesnt have the 3-views thing like IL-2 but unlike Il2 you can zoom out pretty much like you do in FSX or RoF. IN CoD the 'magic' key is called 'Manually Adjust FoV'. That gives me pretty much the same field of vision as I have on IL-2 with Use3Renders=1.



Exactly. The GTS250 did the trick on IL2 but not on CoD, that's why I got the 460GTX. Happy on 3 monitors now.

Heres how it is, 3 monitors driven by 1 video card, you still with me?? Let me know if I'm going to fast for you.

3 monitors @ 800X600 = 2400X1800 total lines drawn. See how easy that was. Now who here is running at 2400X1800 with good FPS??

[TeeJay82]

Old is right... otherwise youd be running 800x200 on each monitor

Backfiring is a bitch but hey, everyone can make mistakes

800x600=4:3 is the standard of none widescreens... with your claim it would have been 4:1 wich ive never heard of. 800x200 divide each on 4 and you get 4:1

[Jatta Raso]

lol

[tf_neuro]

3 monitors @ 800X600 = 2400X1800 total lines drawn

No, Einstein. it's 2400x600.

With three monitors @ 800x600 each, you can do either 2400x600 (side by side) or 800x1800 (in a pile)
You'd need 9 monitors to do 2400x1800.
If you can't grasp a concept this simple, you probably shouldnt be using a computer in the first place.

I even posted a picture to explain it... looks like there's no hope (what ever happened to the school system?!?)
Just trust me, it's 2400x600, not 2400x1800.

[tf_neuro]

OK, one last try. This should settle it once and for all:



This is what I meant when I said you'd need 9 monitors to do 2400x1800
(hint: as I only have 3 monitors, my setup must be one of the first 2...)


... if this doesnt convince you, I give up.
I won't explain it again.
(in fact, I can't believe im still trying)

[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.

[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.