Read the forum code of contact
By: - 3rd July 2008 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How the devil would we know? :confused:
Are you sure you've signed up to the right site?
By: - 3rd July 2008 at 20:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, it´s meant for flightsimulation, PC-Pilot (a mag for PC flightsimming) advertizes all the time, I may have posted in the wrong section, I apologize.
Oh, and thank you for being such a kind and patient man.
By: - 3rd July 2008 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, it´s meant for flightsimulation, PC-Pilot (a mag for PC flightsimming) advertizes all the time, I may have posted in the wrong section, I apologize.Oh, and thank you for being such a kind and patient man.
My pleasure. Thank you for being so careful when posting in a new forum for the first time. :p
By: - 5th July 2008 at 16:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've been using a MatroxTripplehead digital at 3840x1024 resolution with FSX on Vista Ultimate and WinXP Pro for a while.
In a recent thread on this forum (I'll just quickly re-iterate here), when you go to such a large resolution the fps does drop, especially with weather or any kind of transparancy effects. So you need a card with a pretty good fill rate to compensate. With DX10 your 8800 GTS on it's own might be OK except for the above transparancy slow-down. This includes reflections and self shadowing I've found. I'm not sure what the performance difference there is between the GTS and GTX model. But my own 8600GT in Vista can often manage between 20-24 fps with conservative use of display settings.
8800 GTX on it's own or even better in SLI, or the 9600 series seem to manage higher resolutions quite nicley though.
Is it worth going to Vista for DX10? I personally don't think so, not just for FSX. When I use DX10 move I get flashing texture issues with markings at airports, the self-shadowing feature while pretty eats frames. These could well be driver and card issues, I'm told my 8600 is not fully DX10 compatible. Post processing effects are slightly faster with DX10 turned on though.
That's all I can offer in way of experience.
/You have control
By: - 9th July 2008 at 21:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thank you very much for your input, Flex! Well the GTS isn´t quite up there with GTX, so I´m concidering overclocking it. It may fry, I know, but that´ll give me a perfect excuse to purchase a new graphics accelerator:diablo:
At the moment I´m thinking of purchasing three new wide screen monitors, just stay with Dx9c, and accept, that I won´t get the screens left and right filled completely. But who knows what technological marvels lurk around the next corner that may take full use of my intended setup?! By the way, I can get three new Samsung wide screen monitors for almost the same money I´d have to pay to get two additional of my current Samsung monitor.:confused:
I´ll let you know how it turns out.
Posts: 4
By: Crewecut - 3rd July 2008 at 14:32
So Matrox got their Triplehead2go splitter for a 3840x1024 maximum resolution when running Dx9c, so in my case tree monitors of 1280 x 1024 (since my current screen is 1280 x 1024). See other possibilities: http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/resolution/digital/resolutions.html
This interesting thread however
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/07/06/matrox_triplehead2go_digital_edition/1
explains possibilities of double the resolution when running Dx10 (and the dreaded Vista).
Now, does anyone have any experience with Dx10, TH2Go and three wide screen monitors? And if so, what are the demands on the GPU for a smooth run in FSX? (And is it worth running Vista for?:p)
I currently run nVidia Geforce 8800 GTS 650MB normal clock, will I have to run SLI or could I squeeze my current GPU?