Cockpit

* User Profile

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Who's Online

  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 47
  • *Total: 48

Our Discord

Author Topic: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach  (Read 8543 times)

Offline Flying_Fox

  • Forum GURU
  • *
  • Posts: 474
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • P3D/Win7-64/FDS/3 x Optoma GT1080Darbee
    • My build blog
  • First Name: Nick
  • Home Location: Halifax, Canada
My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« on: May 14, 2013, 06:45:30 PM »
Hi All

The latest visuals approach I tried was using 3 views instead of 4 that Windowmaker creates.

This approach is based on recent thread here:  http://prosim737.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=3837 and here:  http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/cockpit-outside-visualization/25839-three-views-window-maker-tool-new-solutions.html#post138114

I did not invent this approach, I just hope I could explain it better here than it is in original threads. It took me quite some time until I could get it working right.

So, here is what I did.

I use ProSim Jetstream 737-800 model now.
First, I've set 2D cockpit in FSX configuration.
Next, I did the following changes in Jetstream panel.cfg (\FSX\SimObjects\Airplanes\Jetstream_738\panel\panel.cfg).
Those are the only enabled lines in panel.cfg now:

/////////////////////////////////////
[Window Titles]
window00=Main Panel

[Window00]
file_1024=Boeing.bmp
size_mm=1024
position=7
visible=1
ident=MAIN_PANEL
//////////////////////////////////


Next, file boeing.bmp (see attacment below) is placed to \FSX\SimObjects\Airplanes\Jetstream_738\panel folder.

Next, there are following changes to view/camera definitions in default flight .FLT file:
Note, only 3 views are used, not 4.  Zoom value is still same as calculated by Windowmaker.

//////////////////////////////////
[Window.1]
Order=2
Active=False
Undocked=False
Maximized=False
ScreenUniCoords=2731, 0, 2731, 6144
UndocCoords=0, 0, 0, 0
CurrentCamera={B1386D92-4782-4682-A137-738E25D1BAB5}

[Camera.1.1]
Guid={B1386D92-4782-4682-A137-738E25D1BAB5}
Zoom=0.447647365534387
Title=Center view
Translation=0, 0, 0
Rotation=0, 0, 0

///
[Window.2]
Order=0
Active=False
Undocked=False
Maximized=False
ScreenUniCoords=1, 0, 2731, 6144
UndocCoords=0, 0, 0, 0
CurrentCamera={B1386D92-4782-4682-A137-738E25D1BAB5}

[Camera.2.1]
Guid={B1386D92-4782-4682-A137-738E25D1BAB5}
Zoom=0.447647365534387
Title=Left view
Translation=0, 0, 0
Rotation=0, -68, 0

///
[Window.3]
Order=1
Active=False
Undocked=False
Maximized=False
ScreenUniCoords=5461, 0, 2731, 6144
UndocCoords=0, 0, 0, 0
CurrentCamera={B1386D92-4782-4682-A137-738E25D1BAB5}

[Camera.3.1]
Guid={B1386D92-4782-4682-A137-738E25D1BAB5}
Zoom=0.447647365534387
Translation=0, 0, 0
Rotation=0, 68, 0

//////////////////////////////////


Compared to 4 views version generated by Windowmaker, that I used before:

////////////////////////
[Window.1]
Order=0
Active=True
Undocked=False
Maximized=False
ScreenUniCoords=1, 1, 4, 4
CurrentCamera={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}

[Camera.1.1]
Guid={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}
Zoom=255
Translation=0, 0, 0
Rotation=-90, 0, 0

[Window.2]
Order=2
Active=False
Undocked=False
Maximized=False
ScreenUniCoords=1, 0, 2731, 6144
CurrentCamera={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}

[Camera.2.1]
Guid={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}
Zoom=0.447647365534387
Translation=0, 0, 0
Rotation=0, -68, 0


[Window.3]
Order=3
Active=False
Undocked=False
Maximized=False
ScreenUniCoords=2731, 0, 2731, 6144
CurrentCamera={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}

[Camera.3.1]
Guid={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}
Zoom=0.447647365534387
Translation=0, 0, 0
Rotation=0, 0, 0


[Window.4]
Order=4
Active=False
Undocked=False
Maximized=False
ScreenUniCoords=5461, 0, 2731, 6144
CurrentCamera={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}


[Camera.4.1]
Guid={C95EAB58-9E4A-4E2A-A34C-D8D9D948F078}
Zoom=0.447647365534387
Translation=0, 0, 0
Rotation=0, 68, 0
//////////////////////////////////




For visual tests I always use ORBX Cairns International airport. It is heavy scenery with mountains (lots of autogen trees) on one side, sea on another side and many buildings below with takeoff in either direction.

No internal/external FPS limiter is used.
[BUFFERPOOLS]
Poolsize=0


My videocard is GeForce GTX 570. 8 GB RAM and two SSD drives.
Processor I7 2600K Sandy Bridge with hyperthreading off, overclocked to 4.6 GHz

Below are my FSX settings that I always use for visual tests:

And also how the screen looks like (screenshot in windowed mode) when I move center window window off a bit. Instead of maximized full-screen 4-th window below there is just a black area.

I also attach my fsx.cfg and default FLT file used in testing for your reference.

My results of this switch to 3 views are:

With 4 views version before I had 17-18 FPS on takeoff in Cairns.
With 3 views version now I have 22~24 FPS.

After takeoff FPS quickly go over 30.
On landing FPS were often dropping to 15 before. Now they might drop in 20 range.

So I definitely see the improvement with this 3 views setup.  :idiot:

Nick


Offline Maurice

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Intermediate/advanced builder
  • First Name: Maurice
  • Home Location: Gravenhurst, Ontario. CANADA
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2013, 07:12:43 PM »
Hi Nick,

This is very, VERY interesting indeed. I had tried to use 3 windows before with no success so I will try this as soon as I can. I always suspected that the extra window would rob fps and you confirmed it, so this is great news.

Thanks very much for the detailed information,
Maurice
Gravenhurst, Ontario - Canada

Offline Maurice

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Intermediate/advanced builder
  • First Name: Maurice
  • Home Location: Gravenhurst, Ontario. CANADA
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2013, 04:55:39 PM »
Hi Nick,

Well, I've tried this new 3 windows setup and this is what I found so far. Keep in mind that the fps is only a close approximation

First, the good:
I did a test at CYYZ on the runway with 40% traffic. With the old method, the sim starts with 24 fps and after a few seconds, Ultimate traffic kicks in and fps drops to ~18 fps.
With the new 3 windows method, the sim starts at 27 fps and drops to~21 after the traffic loads.

Same test in LOWI . With old method, fps stable at 21 fps since there was no visible traffic
With new method, fps hovers around 25 fps

So, this looks very good so fat BUT...

The Bad:
Because there isn't an active window in the background anymore, one of the 3 views has to be active and whatever view is active ends up with a white border around it. I find that very annoying since, to my knowledge, there is no way to get rid of the white border.

So, I'm not sure right now which I dislike the most...lower frame rates or white border. I know that a white border may not be as intrusive as monitor bezels but I don't know if it will stop bothering me. I think it would be less intrusive if it was black instead of white but I don't think that can be changed without changing the FSX code and good luck with that  ;D

Anyway, did you see the white border as well and what do you think about it?

Thanks,
Maurice
Gravenhurst, Ontario - Canada

Offline blueskydriver

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,707
  • Karma: +4/-2
  • FSX/FS9 PM, PMDG737-700, FDSMIP/Overhead.etc
  • First Name: John
  • Home Location: WI
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2013, 06:50:47 PM »
Hi Maurice,

All this 3 views news, is good news! I will try it soon myself. In the mean time, have you edited your UT too remove the default aircraft or MSFS Sim aircraft and other AddOn Aircraft (not UT AI)? If you're still using those other planes and they get used as AI (which they do by default), as soon as one pops up your fps takes a hit. That's because it's the same quality of your aircraft, so it hits the fps like yours. Thus, you must make sure the defaults/add-ons are not being used as AI.

As for the white line, I thought there was something out there for this; however, could you turn on blending and just blend enough to remove the white lines from the center view on the sides. It'll still be on top and bottom, but out of your line of sight right? The blending would be so small you likely would not notice it.

John
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 06:51:28 PM by blueskydriver »
| FSX | FDS-MIP OVRHD SYS CARDS FC1| PM | PMDG 737-700 | UTX | GEX | UT7 | ASE | REX2 | AES | TSR | IS | TOPCAT | AvilaSoft EFB | OC CARDS & OVRHD GAUGES| SIMKITS | SW 3D Lights | FS2CREW2010 | FSXPassengers | Flight1 AE | MATROX TH2GO-D | NTHUSIM | 3-Mits EW230Ust Proj |

Offline Flying_Fox

  • Forum GURU
  • *
  • Posts: 474
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • P3D/Win7-64/FDS/3 x Optoma GT1080Darbee
    • My build blog
  • First Name: Nick
  • Home Location: Halifax, Canada
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2013, 07:51:55 PM »

The Bad:
Because there isn't an active window in the background anymore, one of the 3 views has to be active and whatever view is active ends up with a white border around it. I find that very annoying since, to my knowledge, there is no way to get rid of the white border.

So, I'm not sure right now which I dislike the most...lower frame rates or white border. I know that a white border may not be as intrusive as monitor bezels but I don't know if it will stop bothering me. I think it would be less intrusive if it was black instead of white but I don't think that can be changed without changing the FSX code and good luck with that  ;D

Anyway, did you see the white border as well and what do you think about it?

Hi Maurice,

Do you still use Immersive Display Lite 2 for warping?

I use it and I don't have the white border in active view since Nikola Gidalov fixed this problem just last week. He connected to my PC for troubleshooting and within an hour it was resolved. He is going to release the updated Immersive Display Lite 2 version soon.

Nick

Offline Maurice

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Intermediate/advanced builder
  • First Name: Maurice
  • Home Location: Gravenhurst, Ontario. CANADA
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2013, 08:33:25 PM »


Hi Maurice,

Do you still use Immersive Display Lite 2 for warping?

I use it and I don't have the white border in active view since Nikola Gidalov fixed this problem just last week. He connected to my PC for troubleshooting and within an hour it was resolved. He is going to release the updated Immersive Display Lite 2 version soon.


Hi Nick

Yes, that is what I use now. Do you have any idea how Nikola got rid of the white border? If not I'll wait until he releases an updated version.
Anyway, if the white border can be removed, then this is definitely an improvement over the 4 windows version. Even an extra 2-3 fps is much better than nothing especially in busy airports.

Thanks again for letting us know about this new 3 view method.

Maurice
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 08:34:02 PM by Maurice »
Gravenhurst, Ontario - Canada

Offline Maurice

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Intermediate/advanced builder
  • First Name: Maurice
  • Home Location: Gravenhurst, Ontario. CANADA
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2013, 08:43:28 PM »
Hi John,

About the default AI traffic, I have not seen any since I installed Ultimate Traffic so I have no idea whether it is still lurking in the background somewhere. But if it is, I don't know how to get rid of it. I seen to remember a file called trafficAI.bgl but I looked for anything close to that name and did not find it.

As for the white border, I very much doubt blending would remove. I did try adjusting the warping to slightly overlap the views and I could still see the line. At any rate, there appears to be a solution forthcoming soon with FlyElise. So, I'm going to wait for that and hope for the best.

Thanks for the suggestions though,

Maurice
Gravenhurst, Ontario - Canada

Offline Flying_Fox

  • Forum GURU
  • *
  • Posts: 474
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • P3D/Win7-64/FDS/3 x Optoma GT1080Darbee
    • My build blog
  • First Name: Nick
  • Home Location: Halifax, Canada
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2013, 11:41:21 PM »

Hi Nick

Yes, that is what I use now. Do you have any idea how Nikola got rid of the white border? If not I'll wait until he releases an updated version.
Anyway, if the white border can be removed, then this is definitely an improvement over the 4 windows version. Even an extra 2-3 fps is much better than nothing especially in busy airports.

Thanks again for letting us know about this new 3 view method.

Maurice

Hi Maurice,

Not sure what Nikola did exactly, I guess we should wait for the new Lite 2 release.

I did not invent this 3  views approach, I just hope I could explain it better here than it was in original threads. It took me quite some time to figure out until I could get it working right.

One thing we should watch for with editing .FLT file - I found it quite common issue when saving the edited FLT in FSX. There may appear duplicate camera definitions with the same ID (like [Camera.1.1] for example). Visually what happens - you change, for example zoom parameter and it does not work, because FSX takes it from another camera definition down below in file.  :idiot:

Nick


Offline Maurice

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Intermediate/advanced builder
  • First Name: Maurice
  • Home Location: Gravenhurst, Ontario. CANADA
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2013, 09:23:50 AM »

Hi Maurice,

Not sure what Nikola did exactly, I guess we should wait for the new Lite 2 release.

I did not invent this 3  views approach, I just hope I could explain it better here than it was in original threads. It took me quite some time to figure out until I could get it working right.

One thing we should watch for with editing .FLT file - I found it quite common issue when saving the edited FLT in FSX. There may appear duplicate camera definitions with the same ID (like [Camera.1.1] for example). Visually what happens - you change, for example zoom parameter and it does not work, because FSX takes it from another camera definition down below in file.  :idiot:

Nick

Yes Nick, you did explain it much better than in the original Prosim forum. Thank you for that.

Regarding the .flt file, what I have done is create a text file that contains just the 3 (or 4) views and I just copy & paste the contents over the entire views sections in the .flt file. So in this way, I have never seen the problem you mentioned about duplicate camera definitions. But maybe it was just luck :)

Thanks,

Maurice
Gravenhurst, Ontario - Canada

Offline Flying_Fox

  • Forum GURU
  • *
  • Posts: 474
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • P3D/Win7-64/FDS/3 x Optoma GT1080Darbee
    • My build blog
  • First Name: Nick
  • Home Location: Halifax, Canada
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2013, 01:02:44 PM »
As I understand, the problem may appear if you at some point trying to save FLT file through FSX.

Offline blueskydriver

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,707
  • Karma: +4/-2
  • FSX/FS9 PM, PMDG737-700, FDSMIP/Overhead.etc
  • First Name: John
  • Home Location: WI
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2013, 05:22:33 PM »
Finally got some time to do this and what I found is really good. I gained about 5-7 fps with the 3 views instead of 4, and that was in heavy clouds and at a payware airport. If the weather was less dramatic and at a standard airport I imagine the fps would be even higher. Still, 5-7 fps is a lot in the world of FSX.

Just a couple notes:

1. About the white outline; I have it showing, but I think there is a way to turn it off or change the color. Either way, I have it on the center view and my edges have just enough butting to block it out. So, Maurice you can adjust for it.

2. This is about the order numbers. If you label them 0, 1, & 2 (in the order location of the .FLT file), you must have 0 as the center view. Why? Because that is the view with the white line (box); however, it is the 0 order number that the sound files are tied too. Yes, you heard me right, if you select a different view the sound of the engines will stop playing, or they're actually playing, but you will not hear them. With the original four views you did not select the 0 order because it was the background layer. If you did by chance select a front order value, you would have to go into the views of the menu line and select the blank locations at the bottom. Mainly, you would've selected the first in the blank list (seeing a check mark indication) to get back to 0 order. Anyway, if you label the center view as 0, your sound will work correctly. Unless, you of course select one of the other views accidently...

Finally, I think this is a great improvement. I hghly recommend others give this a try...

John
| FSX | FDS-MIP OVRHD SYS CARDS FC1| PM | PMDG 737-700 | UTX | GEX | UT7 | ASE | REX2 | AES | TSR | IS | TOPCAT | AvilaSoft EFB | OC CARDS & OVRHD GAUGES| SIMKITS | SW 3D Lights | FS2CREW2010 | FSXPassengers | Flight1 AE | MATROX TH2GO-D | NTHUSIM | 3-Mits EW230Ust Proj |

Offline Maurice

  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 1,684
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Intermediate/advanced builder
  • First Name: Maurice
  • Home Location: Gravenhurst, Ontario. CANADA
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2013, 12:58:28 AM »
Quote
"I gained about 5-7 fps with the 3 views instead of 4, and that was in heavy clouds and at a payware airport."

Either you are very lucky John or my FSX is very poorly tuned (quite possible) since I am only getting about 2 fps increase max. I really expected quite a bit more so I am quite surprised. But 2 fps is still better than nothing :).

Incidentally, where was the hidden window in your 4 windows setup pointed at? Mine was pointing straight up with 512 magnification so all there was on that window was blue sky with no scenery whatsoever and that should not have taken very much CPU time to render, which may explain why I am only getting an extra 2 fps or so.

As far as the sound is concerned, I never had a problem with it so quite possibly I did the right thing accidentally. I'll verify tomorrow if I get a chance but thanks for the tip anyway.

Maurice
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 01:07:54 AM by Maurice »
Gravenhurst, Ontario - Canada

Offline brianwilliamson

  • Forum GURU
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Junior Builder
  • First Name: Brian Williamson
  • Home Location: GOLD COAST --AUSTRALIA
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2013, 02:13:55 AM »
Thank you Nick for posting that info. Boy what a difference. I now run at 28-30 at Cairns instead of 20-23. I have been busy testing other bits and pieces so I have only just tried the 3 screens out today. I have always worried about that 4th screen taking up resources and now it has paid off.
Thanks...........Brian W.

Offline westman

  • CockpitBuilder
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Aviation Enthusiast
  • First Name: hasse
  • Home Location: Sweden
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2013, 01:43:07 AM »
Hi
I begin testing this when migrate from fs9 to FSX try to run 3 views with X8600 then QX6700 back 2005-2006.
But the hardware was to weak, i begin running Wideview instead.
With the 2gen Intel CPU:s its was time to give it a go.

By the way my eng is very bad have problem to explain on a proper way.

it can give a fps gain from 1 to 10fps its depends all what kind of hardware and settings you run.

This summer i shall do a lot of hardware tests in FSX , when they ar ready a can share them here .

I compare this hardware in exact same settings with dif res up to 3x setup 5760x1080.

Hardware:
  CPU:s  3770k 4770K ( have a old 2700k not think its any reason to run all tests one more time in my eyes its to weak)
  Pending: AMD 8350 ( only to show the poor FSX performance with AMD)
  I not gone run any Sandy-E 2011 poor IPC and bad overclocker, not worth the money if running FSX ( I shall test IVYBridge_E in the end of this year)

GPU:s Nvidia 680 4gb, Titan, 690 (see how SLI works compared to single GPU)
   Pending: Nvidia 770,780 and amd 7990 ( one of the vendors have promised me testcards during the summer)

Edit: Memory perfomance in FSX. test different mems 1600-2800mhz with differnt timings, ( show how important good mems ar in FSX ).


My main FSX PC : 3770K @5.3ghz, mem 2800mhz cl10 and Nvida Titan

Kind Regards / Hasse



« Last Edit: June 19, 2013, 01:58:13 AM by westman »

Offline Trevor Hale

  • Administrator
  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 3,571
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • Cockpitbuilders.com
  • First Name: Trevor
  • Home Location: New Liskeard, Ontario
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2013, 06:35:41 AM »
Hasse,

Don't worry about your English, you have done very well, and your contributions are appreciated.

Welcome to the Forum.  We all benefit from this kind of information.

Trev
Trevor Hale

Owner
http://www.cockpitbuilders.com

Director of Operations
Worldflight Team USA
http://www.worldflightusa.com

VATSIM:

Offline westman

  • CockpitBuilder
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Aviation Enthusiast
  • First Name: hasse
  • Home Location: Sweden
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2013, 08:00:12 AM »
Thanks Trevor

Here is a picture of the videocards, only to show that the tests ar serious.
The most inresting part would be to see SLI in 3X views i have not seen any reel test yet for cockpitbuilders.
In the parts were you ar CPU bound it not gone do anything but your not that all time.

Hasse




Offline tennyson

  • I may as well be Staff!
  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Aviation Enthusiast
  • First Name: Frank
  • Home Location: Brisbane, Australia
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2013, 08:35:01 AM »
Now that is some pretty serious hardware there!

I'll take the Titan, but I don't know that FSX would run any better with the Titan or the 690 over the lowly 600.
Hasn't it been established that anything over 2Gb of onboard Graphics RAM is wasted?



Frank Cooper

Offline westman

  • CockpitBuilder
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Aviation Enthusiast
  • First Name: hasse
  • Home Location: Sweden
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2013, 09:24:56 AM »
your right more than 2gb GPU ram i wasted.
But cant we cant do anything , most of the highend gpus gone be delivired with +4gb soon.
It was a lot of rumors over OOM and Vas if you have more than 4gb mem but a have not have a single oom with the Titan.
The 600 is a 680 4gb videocard.
The performance with 3 x views in bad conditions compared with the Titan is huge you dont belive it .
On the other hand you must have CPU for it to no reason to by a titan with any slower CPU than SandyB @ +5ghz

Offline Trevor Hale

  • Administrator
  • I am chained to this website!
  • *
  • Posts: 3,571
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • Cockpitbuilders.com
  • First Name: Trevor
  • Home Location: New Liskeard, Ontario
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2013, 10:22:30 AM »
Thanks again Hasse,

Great info.
Trevor Hale

Owner
http://www.cockpitbuilders.com

Director of Operations
Worldflight Team USA
http://www.worldflightusa.com

VATSIM:

Offline Flying_Fox

  • Forum GURU
  • *
  • Posts: 474
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • P3D/Win7-64/FDS/3 x Optoma GT1080Darbee
    • My build blog
  • First Name: Nick
  • Home Location: Halifax, Canada
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2013, 11:59:10 AM »
Thank you Nick for posting that info. Boy what a difference. I now run at 28-30 at Cairns instead of 20-23. I have been busy testing other bits and pieces so I have only just tried the 3 screens out today. I have always worried about that 4th screen taking up resources and now it has paid off.
Thanks...........Brian W.

Thanks Brian, glad it helped!

Nick

Offline tennyson

  • I may as well be Staff!
  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Aviation Enthusiast
  • First Name: Frank
  • Home Location: Brisbane, Australia
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2013, 08:54:24 PM »
So, Hasse, are you saying that you saw significant frame improvement with the titan over the 680 and the 690?

And are you talking via an LCD, or multiple projector set-up?

I'm really interested as I'm buying a GTX780 for a multi-projector set-up and I'd like to know that I'm doing the right thing,



Frank Cooper

Offline westman

  • CockpitBuilder
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Aviation Enthusiast
  • First Name: hasse
  • Home Location: Sweden
Re: My testing of 3 windowed views (not 4!) approach
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2013, 02:21:30 AM »
Hi Frank.
I run 3X LCD 5040x1050, my friend run 3X projector setup 3840X800 with warpalizer.
The hardware is exact as mine the only diff is the cooling of the CPU he run a H100 and i run with PhaseChange.
He running the 3770K @4.7ghz and mine @5.3ghz witch give me approx 12-15% more fps.

The big differns to the 680 is when running high res with  8xS 4xSGSS the 680 begin to suffer with bad conditions at 2xSGSS proably you need
to run 8x multisampling the TITAN and probly the 780 handle 4xSGSS better than the 680 with 2xSGSS.

We run 1/2 refresh rate in NVI and fhe fps looked at 30fps inside FSX not in NV inspector or NV controlpanel.
During tuning the sim i do all tests with unlimited .

The 690 is not tested yet arrived last week.

for them running full HD 5760x1080 the only cards that handle that mega res with moderate IQ settings is the TITAN and 780 ( 690? ).
One more run Full HD with 3x view setup you need very strong CPU in my case i need 10-15% faster CPU.
its a lot of diff rumors out here from them runnig 3x monitor with NV surround one veiw streched with ugly fish eye veiw , surround have
very little impact on FSX compared to a real 3x veiw setup.

Go for the 780 ;)

Cheers/ Hasse

 

COUNTDOWN TO WF2018


WORLDFLIGHT TEAM USA

Will Depart in...

Recent Posts

What have you done for your simulator today?
by Nolatron
[Today at 03:15:34 PM]
Relay causes bad readings
by kurt-olsson
[Today at 03:00:12 PM]
Where do i begin from here.
by kurt-olsson
[Today at 11:32:29 AM]
John's List of 3D Printed Items for Flight Simulation
by blueskydriver
[September 23, 2018, 02:55:02 PM]
737NG Go-Around_Procedure
by bravolima
[September 23, 2018, 01:10:24 PM]
Memphis 727 Build
by kurt-olsson
[September 23, 2018, 10:01:29 AM]
OEM Throttle Quadrant Conversions?
by bernard S
[September 22, 2018, 07:29:48 AM]
For Sale - FSC Motorised Throttle Quadrant
by KyleH
[September 21, 2018, 09:18:02 PM]
Just to make sure i am not doing anything stupid
by kurt-olsson
[September 21, 2018, 01:57:12 PM]
737-800 Arduino X-Plane Build
by kurt-olsson
[September 21, 2018, 01:42:00 PM]
My project, 737 in the basement.
by mickc
[September 21, 2018, 05:48:19 AM]
New guy intro and 727 cockpit for X-Plane project start
by Flying_Fox
[September 19, 2018, 05:06:50 PM]
Flying Polar Routes
by jackpilot
[September 18, 2018, 12:07:33 PM]
STEERING AND YOKE 737 PROMO
by navymustang
[September 17, 2018, 03:44:39 PM]
Monitor and keyboard arm
by navymustang
[September 17, 2018, 03:43:17 PM]
With 60 Days Left, We have a plan
by FredK
[September 17, 2018, 11:08:58 AM]
For Sale: CPFlight MCP 737 EL $400 USD Shipped Lower 48
by Steenos
[September 17, 2018, 11:01:18 AM]
INTRODUCTION
by bernard S
[September 15, 2018, 07:10:49 PM]
Wanted Pair of Headrests of this type!
by bernard S
[September 15, 2018, 06:43:09 PM]
Some Questions about Project Magenta CDU
by Pantu
[September 15, 2018, 10:35:41 AM]
GAPanel/FSUIPC coding
by sedge
[September 14, 2018, 02:22:31 PM]
Wanted! Real Boeing 737 TQ
by kurt-olsson
[September 14, 2018, 04:24:57 AM]
OEM window eye brow trim
by kurt-olsson
[September 14, 2018, 04:22:20 AM]
Linked Brakes
by blueskydriver
[September 14, 2018, 03:12:26 AM]
Mickey's Flightdeck - A Boeing 737-800 Cockpit on Youtube
by Extraterra
[September 13, 2018, 09:23:22 AM]
CDU hidden fire page
by Pantu
[September 12, 2018, 01:25:24 PM]
737NG parts for sale, most are REAL!
by 737NGer
[September 12, 2018, 11:22:50 AM]
A320 Sound (for homecockpit)
by okansacli
[September 12, 2018, 10:07:03 AM]
SIOC Stepper Help
by okansacli
[September 12, 2018, 10:00:11 AM]
Boeing 737-800 Next Generation Simulator
by blueskydriver
[September 12, 2018, 04:41:07 AM]