Recommendation for 6 x 1680x1050 monitors for 2xTH2G conf?

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 29 Sep 2008, 22:17

So as a some of you have probably seen, I'm experimenting with setting up 6 headed display using two TH2G units...

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/node/9481

I'd like some recommendations on monitors...
Specifically I think I'd prefer to stick with 6 x 1680x1050 monitors, though is someone has a compelling argument for 6 x 1280x1024, I'm game.

I'll most likely be replacing all the monitors I have to do this...
right now I'm using 3 different 22" 1680x1050s and 3 different 19" 1280x1024s.

I'll consider different monitor sizes 19"/20"/21.6"/22"...
I'm not sure that a 19" 1680x1050 is big enough... I saw one at Costco and it seemed tiny to me... any opinions?

I'm thinking of doing 2 rows of 3 stacked vertically....
1680x1050 - 1680x1050 - 1680x1050
1680x1050 - 1680x1050 - 1680x1050

using an nvidia card set to vertical mirror.

Right now I only have an 8800GT but it seems to work "ok" in some basic LOTRO testing at 3840x2048. I'm also open to suggestions for new video cards. I'm willing to upgrade if someone can help me justify the cost (keep in mind I also have to buy 6 monitors and the mounting hardware).

So the questions:
1) What monitors do you recommend and why?
2) How would you mount this setup?
3) What video card(s) would you use

Some of my concerns:
* Monitor bezels both sides and top/bottom

* must support 57hz @ 1680x1050 (unless it's 1280x1024) without being annoying

* I'd prefer to have at least DVI and VGA (multiple inputs is a bonus) as I'll use some of them with a matrix KVM also.

* I'd prefer control over whether the monitor autosenses it's input or not (I have one monitor right now that senses no signal on DVI when the TH2G switches resolutions, so it flips over to the KVM that's on VGA... really annoying as I have to go manually switch it back)

* COST ... I'm not made of money, I'll probably have to sell my other monitors to get this rig up.

* I am somewhat space constrained.

Thoughts?

VentZero · Post by **VentZero** » 30 Sep 2008, 12:30

whoa sick Oo

well i dont think that you could run any game with a 10.584000pixel screen setup because dx10 is limited to 8.192000pixel, so you will be forced to reduce the resolution of your screens to 1440x900

becuase of that i would prefer to use 5:4 screens with 1280x1024 which would be 7.864320pixel

anyways for widescreen monitors i would choose these "HannsG HI221DP" its quite cheap but rather good

22", 0,28 mm x 0,28 mm, 5 ms (b/w/b), 1000 : 1, 300 cd/mÂ², 1 x VGA, 1 x DVI-D, (on of the inputs with 1 x mit HDCP), 1 x 3,5 mm Audio, small Bezel,

and i think they run @57hz

price(in germany - shop alternate.de) : 169â‚¬
http://www.alternate.de/html/product/TFT-Monitore_22_Zoll/HannsG/HI221DP/226767/?tn=HARDWARE&l1=Monitore&l2=22+Zoll

well there are some stands from ergotron which can mount 4 monitors 2x2
but maybe use 2 ds100 triplemounts and 2 wallmounts http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Ergotron_Neo-Flex_HD_%26_DS100_Triple-Monitor_Stand_%28Featured_Review%29

for what ive seen in the benchmarks i would go for nVidia gfxcards like 2x9800 gx2 (because of the widescreen support)
but with 5:4 screens maybe the new ATI 4870x2 is the better choice (no widescreen resolution support yet)

Mud · Post by **Mud** » 30 Sep 2008, 14:32

Playing devil's advocate, you realise a 2x3 monitor array won't give you much of an enhanced field of vision over a standard widescreen, merely an increased pixel density? Further, for the price of 6 cheap screens you could have a single large widescreen, say a 40-46" 1080p HDTV or HD projector. I assume I'm patronising you with those comments, but it's worth checking you know what you're in for.

I'm messing around with the idea of 2x3 screens myself, but it's a bit of a logistical nightmare getting the higher row of screens mounted, especially if your desk is infront of the window like mine. I'd be just using the 17" screens left over from before I went to 21.6"ers, and 2 graphics cards instead of a 2nd triplehead2go (so that probably precludes gaming in that configuration).

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 16:33

Playing devil's advocate, you realise a 2x3 monitor array won't give you much of an enhanced field of vision over a standard widescreen, merely an increased pixel density? Further, for the price of 6 cheap screens you could have a single large widescreen, say a 40-46" 1080p HDTV or HD projector. I assume I'm patronising you with those comments, but it's worth checking you know what you're in for.

Yup, I know, I already own a 47" 1080p set. But there's times I'll also want to use the monitors for other things, and I do more then just game. So I can use the other pixels for other things.

Now for gaming specifically... shouldn't a game thats both vert+ and hor+ be ideal for a 2x3 matrix of monitors? Especially if you can either pull the camera back a bit, or better yet change the viewpoint (ie, put the camera higher for more of an overhead view or closer to the ground.)

Heck, i'm still learning some of this stuff and deciding as I go (basically I just realized I had a ton of monitors and hardware, so I figured I'd try out some new stuff) ... I have to think about it, what would the aspect ratio be for ( I think my math is right, but double check it):

Code: Select all



   1680x1050   = 1.6:1    = 16:10

   5040x1050   = 4.8:1    = 48:10

   5040x2100   = 2.4:1    = 24:10

   10080x1050 = 9.6:1    = 96:10

   

   1280x1024 = 1.25:1   =   5:4

   3840x1024 = 3.75:1   = 15:4

   3840x2048 = 1.875:1 = 7.5:4

   7680x1024 = 7.5:1     = 30:4

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what that actually means for my FOV and in generally what I see when I'm in a game (vs using the pixels to display a lot of data/edit photos/and other tasks)... maybe it makes sense to try to create some more sample images for these more exotic resolutions?

Worst case, more pixels means more detail, right? (assuming the hardware can handle rendering it)

I'm messing around with the idea of 2x3 screens myself, but it's a bit of a logistical nightmare getting the higher row of screens mounted, especially if your desk is infront of the window like mine. I'd be just using the 17" screens left over from before I went to 21.6"ers, and 2 graphics cards instead of a 2nd triplehead2go (so that probably precludes gaming in that configuration).

I've got a similar problem, but I also realized ,I don't use the windows anyway (there's a ton of monitors and other stuff in front of them), so i'm thinking about just mounting 2 of those three monitor arms on a sheet of plywood and mounting it over the windows. (or I may just rotate my desk 90 degrees and use the other wall that has nothing on it to mount them all.) But I'm still looking for other/creative suggestions.

[email protected] · Post by **[email protected]** » 30 Sep 2008, 16:44

Well I have a setup similar to this (but only one TH2G) but with 8 screens 3 top 5 bottom. No special mounting is used, they are CRT and stacked on top of each other using Duplo and plywood. For LCD a more intricate setup is needed. you could go to a company like Donz, I have seen their setups and they know wht they re doing, and not too expensive either. If you are on aa budget the I suggest making your own.

For that you should use some 2X4 wood, wood screws and these the should be able to handle 22in widescreens.

Finally I want you to note two things about 16:10 vs 5:4 screens, your games should run in either re setup but you should have more luck with the latter. Second there re 5:4 LCDs designed for multi monitor arrays (all four sides of the bezel re the same thickness even the bottom with th controls on it.but I don't know if that is the same for 16:10. This problem could be aliviated by inverting the top row and using the nvidia drivers or the irotate application to do the same.

Mud · Post by **Mud** » 30 Sep 2008, 16:50

Your math looks fine. I'll hasten to point out I'm currently on 48:10 and it fills my vision (horizontally). Further, whilst games are single frustum rendered the barrel distortion makes any wider seem pointless. I'd go for a second row before I started making it wider.

I think a fundamental issue with 2 rows is that it is somewhat akin to having 2 screens side-by-side...the logical centre of your focus becomes a bezel. For a single row of screens the correct height for decent ergonomics is the top bezel at eye-height (according to HP anyway), which means with 2 rows you'll be accepting bad ergonomics either when using both rows or just one row. For something like a 3rd person game if you can't tilt the camera as you describe to centre the character on the bottom-middle screen then the horizontal bezel between the screens could be a real problem. Likewise anything first person, the area of action is the most compromised area in all the screen real-estate. The lack of vertical bezel management would peeve me also.

I guess the conclusion is what you really need is 3x3 screens!! :P

[email protected] · Post by **[email protected]** » 30 Sep 2008, 16:56

I guess the conclusion is what you really need is 3x3 screens!! :P

For absolutely no change in aspect Ratio? Why not 3X9? Could be done with softTH?

Mud · Post by **Mud** » 30 Sep 2008, 17:02

[quote]I guess the conclusion is what you really need is 3x3 screens!! :P

For absolutely no change in aspect Ratio? Why not 3X9? Could be done with softTH?

Yeah, 3x3 holds no change in aspect ratio, but then again 3x5:2x4 is only 15:8 which is approximately standard widescreen anyhow. I was kidding somewhat, though the additional pixel density does seem to be what tivotechie is striving for here.

I know very little of softTH I'm afraid.

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 17:20

If you are on aa budget the I suggest making your own.

For that you should use some 2X4 wood, wood screws and these the should be able to handle 22in widescreens.

Yes, I was thinking something along those lines would work too. I'd probably want to angle the right and left monitors a bit. I'm definitely leaning toward something home built, maybe a sheet of plywood with some hinges and some 2x4s to set a small frame off the wall that I could swing out to get at cables and mount things like the TH2G and maybe some Ethernet controlled power switches and KVMs.

Finally I want you to note two things about 16:10 vs 5:4 screens, your games should run in either re setup but you should have more luck with the latter.

Do you mean 3x5:4 seems more supported by the games (15:4)? I'm willing to be on the bleeding edge a bit since mostly I've been playing LOTRO which seems to support it fine and i'd guess newer games "should" have less issues... but honestly, I've only had the TH2G setup for 3 days... so I'm still learning.

Second there re 5:4 LCDs designed for multi monitor arrays (all four sides of the bezel re the same thickness even the bottom with the controls on it.but I don't know if that is the same for 16:10.

Agreed, i've definitely seen that, but there do seem to be smaller bezel 16:10 monitors with the same size bezel all around... this one might have worked if it didn't have the built in camera... (ASUS VK222H)...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?nm_mc=AFC-SlickDeals&cm_mmc=AFC-SlickDeals-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&Item=N82E16824236043

(any opinion on that monitor btw?)

This problem could be aliviated by inverting the top row and using the nvidia drivers or the irotate application to do the same.

I'm not sure that would work in this case... to get games to recognize the larger resolutions, I needed to configure the 8800GT with vertical spanning... which makes windows only see one monitor... do the nvidia drivers support flipping one of the video ports and not the other while in vertical (or horizontal) span?

[email protected] · Post by **[email protected]** » 30 Sep 2008, 18:05

Hmm I don't know, they should. Perhaps I will get the chance to test that later today or another member?

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 19:20

Hmm I don't know, they should. Perhaps I will get the chance to test that later today or another member?

I'll try to test it before Monday (when i have to return my friends TH2G)... unless somebody else gets a chance to test before me. I suppose I could still test if afterward just not using 2xTH2G.

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 19:57

whoa sick Oo

well i dont think that you could run any game with a 10.584000pixel screen setup because dx10 is limited to 8.192000pixel, so you will be forced to reduce the resolution of your screens to 1440x900

It was my understanding that 8192x8192 for DX10 was the Texture size limit. Not the surface size limit. Am I wrong about this? (I very well could be)

also since I'm on XP with DX9.0c I would be at the 4096x4096 limit which I'm sure 7680x1024 exceeded (assuming the limits are hard for width x height.)

The above said, who are the DirectX experts on the board?

1) Are 4096x4096 and 8192x8192 texture limits or surface limits?

2) Are they hard boundaries for width x height, or maximum memory taken up? ie:
4096x4096=6861881344
7680x1024= 7864320
5040x2100= 10584000

hence why 7680x1024 can be rendered under DX9?

I'm asking the above questions independent of hardware limits (ie what the DX9/10 APIs allow.)

Can you point me at MSDN documentation for the above? I'd like to understand the real limits.

Also if there's anybody who's very familiar with DX9/10 and/or Windows Device drivers (DDK) ??? I've got some ideas for a shim (like softTH but meant for single cards and/or routing calls to specific cards) I'm not really familiar with the DX APIs, but I'd be willing to learn. In a past life I had done some OpenGL work, but it was in the very early openGL days (back on silicon graphics IRIX systems... so it was like OpenGL 1.1 I think.)

If I'm using the term surface wrong in terms of DirectX please let me know, it's my understanding that a surface is a directX "window" that's rendered into [not a surface of a triangle that you are applying a texture to)

3) Can anybody explain how directX surfaces are created?
3b) can you create surfaces on multiple independent graphics cards? [ie non SLI]

performance wise it might not work well, but one of my ideas is to create a shim that opens multiple directX surfaces on 2 or more graphics cards (or even the same one) but tells the game it's got one surface, then it routes the directX calls to the appropriate card that's actually doing the rendering... there's probably be all sorts of timing and synchronization issues, but it might be possible (if I understood directX better).

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 20:13

Your math looks fine. I'll hasten to point out I'm currently on 48:10 and it fills my vision (horizontally). Further, whilst games are single frustum rendered the barrel distortion makes any wider seem pointless. I'd go for a second row before I started making it wider.

Can you explain the Single Frustum rendering (and barrel distortion) or point to a link? That said, I doubt I'd want to go wider then 3 monitors... when I had six running it was nearly impossible to even look at them all in a meaningful way.

I think a fundamental issue with 2 rows is that it is somewhat akin to having 2 screens side-by-side...the logical centre of your focus becomes a bezel. For a single row of screens the correct height for decent ergonomics is the top bezel at eye-height (according to HP anyway), which means with 2 rows you'll be accepting bad ergonomics either when using both rows or just one row. For something like a 3rd person game if you can't tilt the camera as you describe to centre the character on the bottom-middle screen then the horizontal bezel between the screens could be a real problem. Likewise anything first person, the area of action is the most compromised area in all the screen real-estate. The lack of vertical bezel management would peeve me also.

Agreed, even though I didn't have the monitors stacked when I tested vertical spanning, it was obvious to me that this would be an issue... I have some ideas on this.

One simple idea might be a modified dx9 shim (like softh but with a different use) that allows for vertical bezel management and possibly lying even more about the screen resolution.

Lying about the screen resolution would work by basically telling the game that an even higher resolution was available and then setting a viewport. IE, you might tell the game that 5040x2800 was the screen resolution, but only display 5040x2100 (you choose which 700 pixels to loose)... that would allow you to effectively chuck some stuff you don't want to see (maybe there's too much ground.)

The shim idea needs a little more fleshing out (and either a lot of my time or someone who's more familiar with the DX API and possibly DDK then I am)

Personally for something like LOTRO I'd like to see that characters and have vert+ above that so I could see taller structures (like the mountains/etc)... think about it, when you're fighting a giant you generally have to look up to see him (using the mouse/in game controls)... I think it would be nice to just be able to use my physical eyes instead of my mouse ;)

I guess the conclusion is what you really need is 3x3 screens!! :P

You know somebody will end up trying to do this if we get 2x3 working well... I'm not sure I can come up with an easy way to do this since I dont' have a way to span across multiple video cards as a directX surface.

Mud · Post by **Mud** » 30 Sep 2008, 20:21

Can you explain the Single Frustum rendering (and barrel distortion) or point to a link? That said, I doubt I'd want to go wider then 3 monitors... when I had six running it was nearly impossible to even look at them all in a meaningful way.

I shan't attempt to explain because I'm sure words will fail me, but have a look at this. The link is on culling, but the pic at the top gives a notion of what's going on...a frustum is a cone or pyramid cut parallel to the base.

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 20:22

Yeah, 3x3 holds no change in aspect ratio, but then again 3x5:2x4 is only 15:8 which is approximately standard widescreen anyhow. I was kidding somewhat, though the additional pixel density does seem to be what tivotechie is striving for here.

LOL yes and no :) I'm not sure what i'm striving for yet... mostly abusing technology... but yeah, in the end I think I'm looking for pixel density... I want to use all this space during normal desktop operations, so I might as well use it during games too.

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 20:29

[quote]
Can you explain the Single Frustum rendering (and barrel distortion) or point to a link? That said, I doubt I'd want to go wider then 3 monitors... when I had six running it was nearly impossible to even look at them all in a meaningful way.

I shan't attempt to explain because I'm sure words will fail me, but have a look at this. The link is on culling, but the pic at the top gives a notion of what's going on...a frustum is a cone or pyramid cut parallel to the base.

nice link... I get it now. Actually it gives me some more ideas on how a shim might be implemented too without too much of a performance hit, (still a lot to be worked out and could be game rendering path specific, but if we lied about the size of the screen, allowed the game to request renders from the shim, but had the shim recull to the smaller viewport prior to forwarding the final rendering calls the the real driver/dll... shouldn't be too much of a performance hit)

Mud · Post by **Mud** » 30 Sep 2008, 20:32

You're a hero if you can manage that, I wouldn't know where to start! :lol:

tivotechie · Post by **tivotechie** » 30 Sep 2008, 21:11

You're a hero if you can manage that, I wouldn't know where to start! :lol:

lol, i've got some ideas, but i've got a huge learning curve to get through since most of my programming is on the linux side doing kernel type work... but I'm always up for a new challenge.

I notice you have a GTX280... any chance you have benchmark FPS for LOTRO @ 5040x1050? (I can probably then use that to estimate 5040x2100)

I've been toying with a GTX260 or 280, but I'm also trying to figure out how to afford 6 x 22" monitors... and another TH2G... so I want to understand what I'd get over the 8800GT in real world experience.

Mud · Post by **Mud** » 30 Sep 2008, 21:22

I'm afraid I don't have LOTRO. If you're going to run such hefty resolutions you'll want lots of video memory (and high speed memory at that) to stop the card choking from lack of internal bandwidth, which makes the GTX280 and 4870X2 logical choices. I'm not too sure on the state of the 4870X2's compatibility with the TH2Go, so that bears checking out. Apparently there're refresh parts coming up from nVidia, though these are rumoured to be a die-shrink or a 280GX2 kind of arrangement...to be honest I've stopped looking as it'll only ultimately make me regret the 280!

CY:G · Post by **CY:G** » 30 Sep 2008, 21:26

I'm afraid I don't have LOTRO. If you're going to run such hefty resolutions you'll want lots of video memory (and high speed memory at that) to stop the card choking from lack of internal bandwidth, which makes the GTX280 and 4870X2 logical choices. I'm not too sure on the state of the 4870X2's compatibility with the TH2Go, so that bears checking out. Apparently there're refresh parts coming up from nVidia, though these are rumoured to be a die-shrink or a 280GX2 kind of arrangement...to be honest I've stopped looking as it'll only ultimately make me regret the 280!

Yeah skip the 4870x2, i got one and the performance is AMAZING but it jut doesnt work with TH2Go :(

Widescreen Gaming Forum