5x1L?

[BHawthorne]

I just realized this but I can do 5x1L, not just 5x1P. The limitation is that my 5870's enforce a maximum pixel width of 8000. I was under the impression that on the 6000-series that 8000 pixel limit was doubled to 16k. Could anyone check that to be sure? This can be checked by looking at the dxcaps application in the directx sdk. If that is the case a 6990 could do 5x1L 1080p projection.

8000x1200 would be theoretically ideal for five 1600x1200 displays. It forced 8000x1200 on my 5 1920x1200. The next resolution down that it accepts is 6400x800. Just thought it was interesting since I've seen no mention at this at all being shown anywhere.

What this means, at least for projector users is 360 degree is a lot more probable of a setup now with something like 1280x800 projectors. 6400x800 on 360 degree projection for MSFS anyone? This is something I pondered initially when I first started my projection builds but was later shot down by the reality of 180-degree limited games and at the time the 3x1 limit of TH2G. I guess things change with time. I guess 180 degree limited game cameras are still a stumbling block, but the 5x1L availability is now one step closer to reality of 360 degree game projection. :wink:

[iansilv]

I don't have an answer but I am very interested in one. I agree- the idea of multi-projector surround gaming would be a heck of a lot cooler with 5 landscape screens to work with... think rise of flight ! :)

[skipclarke]

I can confirm that both my 5870 E6 and my 6990 offered 5x1600x900 resolution. Should do 5x1600x1200 for you. There is no bezel compensation, but you wouldn't need it with projectors.

[BHawthorne]

I'll have to do a bit of math and figure out what 16:10 is with 1600x????. That way I can force a custom resolution on it and get proper aspect ratio. 8000x1200 is pretty cool so far. It's just not properly proportional resolution for my panels.

[suiken_2mieu]

I'll have to do a bit of math and figure out what 16:10 is with 1600x????. That way I can force a custom resolution on it and get proper aspect ratio. 8000x1200 is pretty cool so far. It's just not properly proportional resolution for my panels...

.... well ...

Code: Select all

   16   1600

   -----------

   10     ?

   

   ...

   

   1600 * 10 / 16 = 1000

   

   ...

   

   16   1600

   -----------

   10   1000

   

1600x1000 is the new resolution you are looking for.

But I don't think i really needed to spell it out like that...

[BHawthorne]

My brain isn't working tonight. 16:10 = 16/10 = 1600/1000 = 1600x1000 :lol:

[iansilv]

What about 1920 by 1080 on each projector, 5 across so 5 by 1920 for a total horizontal reolution of 9600?

[BHawthorne]

What about 1920 by 1080 on each projector, 5 across so 5 by 1920 for a total horizontal reolution of 9600?

It's a maximum pixel width of 8000, so you'd have to downscale to 1600x900 for an Eyefinity 5x1L resolution of 8000x900. As far as the EDID hacking required to make this work, I tried it earlier tonight and all it succeeded to do is totally confuse me. It's so convoluted in the way you do it, that I liken it to computer voodoo. I never did figure it out for my particular setup. This is something NVIDIA's driver does significantly better than AMD. Doing a custom resolution in the NVIDIA control panel doesn't require downloading obscure applications.

I'm too used to using 6000x1920, so I reverted back to using 5x1P. A webpage viewing height of only 1200 was driving me nuts. 1920 is so much easier to read a webpage on. Well it's good to know that 5x1L is a viable option in any form at all. Proof of concept worked, so back to 5x1P for me. :)

[iansilv]

Hmmm... so why the 8000 pixels width limitation? Will this be fixed in a graphics driver update?

[BHawthorne]

Hmmm... so why the 8000 pixels width limitation? Will this be fixed in a graphics driver update?

It's a hardware limitation. The way GPUs are design they have a maximum pixel limit. Early cards were 2048x2048. It then went to 4096x4096. The last couple of years it ended up being 8192x8192 on NVIDIA and 8000x8000 for AMD. I've read about future cards having a 16kx16k maximum. Not sure if that is in place for the NVIDIA 500-series or the AMD 6000-series though. My particular hardware is 5870 E6.

This whole limitation change is what enabled triple screen gaming to exist. Back in DX8 you were limited to a maximum of 2048x2048. At that time that meant you were maxed out with the pixel size of two average displays -- average being 1024x768 at the time. Everything changed when DX9 hit. It uncapped things and soon video cards were allowing up to 4096x4096 and 8102x8102. Back then 3840x1024 was the triple-head standard and noone gamed above that resolution. Things obviously have changed with time.

You can find the pixel width limit by downloading the DirectX SDK and running DXCaps and looking through your card's spec in the application. At the moment I'm downloading the DX SDK again so I can screen capture what I mean from DXCaps.

[BHawthorne]

Hrrrm, interestingly enough the 8000 might be a driver imposed arbitrary limit depending upon how the Eyefinity core works. I've getting mixed information for my look at DXCaps that show me a theoretical limit of either 16384 or 8192 on screen pixel width. Not sure which is accurate for the 5870 E6 in particular, but 8000 seems wholly arbitrary.

[iansilv]

[quote]Hmmm... so why the 8000 pixels width limitation? Will this be fixed in a graphics driver update?

It's a hardware limitation. The way GPUs are design they have a maximum pixel limit. Early cards were 2048x2048. It then went to 4096x4096. The last couple of years it ended up being 8192x8192 on NVIDIA and 8000x8000 for AMD. I've read about future cards having a 16kx16k maximum. Not sure if that is in place for the NVIDIA 500-series or the AMD 6000-series though. My particular hardware is 5870 E6.

This whole limitation change is what enabled triple screen gaming to exist. Back in DX8 you were limited to a maximum of 2048x2048. At that time that meant you were maxed out with the pixel size of two average displays -- average being 1024x768 at the time. Everything changed when DX9 hit. It uncapped things and soon video cards were allowing up to 4096x4096 and 8102x8102. Back then 3840x1024 was the triple-head standard and noone gamed above that resolution. Things obviously have changed with time.

You can find the pixel width limit by downloading the DirectX SDK and running DXCaps and looking through your card's spec in the application. At the moment I'm downloading the DX SDK again so I can screen capture what I mean from DXCaps.

That's too bad. I would like to know the limitation on the very latest chips that just came out, if anyone knows. Also- if each projector was 1280 by 720, that would work, right? I am more concerned with the wrap around effect of five displays than getting 1920 by 1080 on each one...

[BHawthorne]

I'd be curious to see what the MaxVolumeExtent and MaxTextureRepeat values are on the 6990.

Depending upon the convex mirror configuration 5x1L 1080p could easily do full dome projection coverage. It seems very appealing to me. Although, for my budget I'd have to do 1280x800 5x1L dome. Either way that is highly specialized and would limit my end uses to something like planetarium use or X-Plane flight simulator.

[duniek]

edit//

ok

sorry

[BHawthorne]

Why are you thread-crapping SoftTH in my Eyefinity 5x1L thread? The primary enabling tech you use is SoftTH. I hate when you constantly confuse the less informed to claim some new Eyefinity thing when it's SoftTH. There are several articles out there that have used your examples to misinform people and confuse them about Eyefinity capabilities. Your half-truths are doing more harm than help by posting like this. :P

[iansilv]

What are the disadvantages of that program?

[BHawthorne]

What are the disadvantages of that program?

Latency, the fact that you must manually drop injection dll's into the game folder and the fact you have to manually configure every game with a text file. dll injection like this is seen by some game DRM as a false positive to cheat injections. If you play a game that you're always multiplayer with and it has anti-cheat detection for the game, be prepared for the possibility that you'll have a false positive ban. Also the compatibility is problematic. It's very much a case by case basis for compatibility. This isn't a solution that is universal, you have to manually configure everything in order for it to function.

On the positive side, you can set up any exotic display configuration you want to. duniek misses the real advantage of SoftTH by only showing wide spans and video walls. SoftTH can slice up the layouts to any thing you want. Configure the displays in a + or an H layout if you want to. This is huge potential for simulator games. You can even do nonlinear and non-adjacent display configurations with SoftTH by assigning the display content to be a slice from anywhere in the original rendered 3d artboard. You can also span any video ports out available on all cards. You can even use it to force fake resolutions and FOV onto displays like pushing 8192x1080 to a single 1920x1080 screen.

Some of these advantages introduce latency, sync and tear issues into the configuration. You can do anything you want to with SoftTH and exotic layouts, but it comes with a price of bottlenecks if you're spanning video cards and pushing absurd pixel size.

duniek needs to recall I was using SoftTH to do exotic things even back in 2007, so I do know what I'm talking about. Problem is, he threadjacks totally off-topic around here with SoftTH in Matrox TH2G, NVIDIA Surround and AMD Eyefinity subforums. :wink:

My suggestions from 2007 that eventually turned into SoftTH 2.0:
http://www.kegetys.net/forum

Here is a pic of the first 5x1 gaming setup I did in 2007. TH2G Analog and SoftTH. Talk about old-school 5x1. This was the first documented example of SoftTH ever using more than 3 displays. duniek has an advantage that SoftTH finally implemented all my old suggestions and enabled as many displays as you want now.


There are those that actively seek to have new capabilities implemented and there are those that merely enjoy their use. I like to believe that I'm the former, not the latter.

None of this remotely has anything to do with the original topic though.

[g00seberry]

OK stop.

This topic is about Eyefinity 5x1L. EyeFinity only. I think duniek genuinely thought he was offering some useful information even though it wasn't relevant to the thread and I think BHawthorne you somewhat overreacted. This isn't saying either of you were right or wrong. Regardless of justification, you should both know this kind of attitude isn't expected here.

Any more posts aimed at each other will be removed without warning.

Edit: I've cleaned up the thread. However, posts which actually contained some useful information were kept, so there may be gaps in conversation.