I keep getting amazing that more games works flawless on triple monitor systems.

I hope it will be the same with Skyrim right? It was extremely annoying to get working on both oblivion and fallout 3.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1143/brabrabra.jpg

Three monitors!? :drool: You lucky bunion, you.

...

your system is a beast bro, good stuff!

The break between each monitor would annoy my OCD head off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj2frkROX74

For example, dirt 2 the hud is on the middle monitor.

Game either need this or scalable interfaces.



It really depends i focus mostly on the middle monitor, but i will still get my entier vision in the game.

Some games like simulations you can't care less about the bezel since you welcome the extra space.

What is the actual point of using three monitors? Just seems like your gonna twist your neck off if you need to look at something that is too far to the left or right. And widescreen may be nice, but come on, that is just ridiculous. I'd rather just have a bigger screen.

I love these threads. It's like. "I have an outrageous gaming system. Am I awesome?"

I'm not saying there's no legitimate reason to play on three monitors, or that if I ever saw such a setup I wouldn't be impressed and somewhat jealous. But I never saw any "dual monitor" questions, so idk, just seems funny that we've gone straight to three and it's a potential crisis if the game doesn't play well on that set up. Is dual monitor usage a thing like triple monitors? I can't see why it wouldn't be, makes more sense to me than triple monitors, but I've never heard the double monitor community voice their concerns as vocally (and boastfully) and the triple monitor crowed.

Eh, I'd just be happy to have a wider field of vision on one monitor. OB's was too narrow, and a pain to hop on the console to fix.

Way to show off, man. I think it would be better to have a single curved monitor than three that are normal, but beggars can't be choosers.

Dual monitor is many times more common than triple; I used dual monitors both at home and at work. However they don’t work well for games as you get the border between the screens right in front of you. It work for interface and maps. In Morrowind it would be nice to put the map, stats and inventory on second screen.
Three monitors work well in games as the borders come at the sides and you get a very wide view, better than Imax. Problem is that the game must provide ultra widescreen and a good field of view for it.

The reason you never saw anything about dual monitor usage is it would be pretty stupid; the crosshair would be right in the bezels between both monitors. That is why gaming setups are using 3 and 5 monitors these days. It keeps the crosshair and point of focus on the center monitor.

I'll be building something like this pretty soon, when I get my taxes back lol. I hope it has trip monitor support, it would be nice to have a use for 3 monitors besides more workspace. And some people do these kinds of setups for different reasons. I consider myself a bit of a gaming scientist. I bug/glitch hunt on games after they are released and release my findings if they are good. I also try unique control setups for games. Ever run a 40 man WoW raid with a DDR mat and a Guitar Hero controller? I have, and it actually works very well.

I'm just hoping that it has quadruple monitor support...

Wow, you must get ALL the ladies.

I hope you're being sarcastic, as quad monitors are as flawed as dual monitors, where the centre of view lays under the bezels.

The trick is that you don't swivel your head between monitors. You still use the mouse to look, and focus your own eyes on the centre monitor.
The two side monitors fill out your peripheral vision, and you use them as if they were your avatar/character's peripheral vision.

A person's field of view is about 170-180° and any given game set in the first person perspective should have a field of view that corresponds to how much space the monitor/television takes up in a person's arc of vision, as the window into the game world.

Console games are set to something like 70° because that is the arc of your own vision the television takes up while sitting a several feet away.
Ideally PC games are set up approaching 120° as when you're at your desk, a foot or two away from the monitor/television that is how much vision it takes up.

With three monitors/televisions hooked up, you are able to fill a person's entire field of vision with game world, and start making use of the "seeing things out the corner of your eye" and other natural vision, peripheral phenomena.

Of course, some people, myself included, have set up their PC to be able to display on our lounge TVs and use/browse and game on them from the comfort of our settees too, so being able to adjust FoV to take into account PC gamers playing from either couch or desk is only sensible.

I wouldn't be able to stay seated on account of motion sickness.

I run triple monitors and love it. When gaming you don't have to swivel around so much looking for bad guys. A movement in the corner of your eye gets your attention real fast and you can then hone in on them. For flight and racing sims, I couldn't imagine using only one monitor now that I've played with three. Just like looking out the windshield now.

So what you are saying is that you hope Bethesda goes out of their way to include support for extreme systems that have a negligible impact on their marketability?
If I went out and bought a computer today that had a photon processor chip and a DNA hard drive, would it make any sense for me to insist that Bethesda support it?

No. Why? Because I would be an extreme statistical outlier. Sound familiar?

Neither of those things exist, many-monitor setups do. All it requires from them is handling very wide resolutions and fields of view easily, it is not a huge task.

They do both exist, but only as proof of concept engineering samples at major labs and universities. Princeton has done most of the work on the DNA data processing and storage, and Intel/Luxtera/Freescale have produced workable proofs of photonic processors.

No, they aren't available on the market but that wasn't my point. My point is that if I did have one, I would be the only one. So... how many is enough to justify support? It doesn't matter if it's 1 or 1000 people, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think triple monitor support is still at such a huge minority of people that it's not justified.

It doesn't matter whether they are available, it matters how many are actually in use.

There's one other point too, and that is if the gamer is willing to invest a ridiculous amount of money in an excessively elaborate gaming system, then they had better be aware that it will take extra steps to get everything running smoothly. If you buy a jag, you have to deal with support and maintenance yourself.

The question is, is it worth it for them to spend budget & man-hours on a feature for some small % of the user base. (Esp since it's a fraction of a fraction - just part of the PC users)

(Hmm, couldn't find the right statistic on the Steam Hardware Survey. It breaks down the resolutions used in multi-monitor setups, but I couldn't find what % of their users actually have such a setup.)

Certainly, if they had to do a great deal of work - the problem is they don't. They simply have to make sure everything scales properly with field of view and resolution, something they should be doing anyway.



Yes it is. It doesn't matter if nobody can do it, at some point people will be able to, and there is absolutely no reason to not support it.

I would absolutely agree with you if you're right. If it doesn't cost them very much, then by all means. You should match the investment to the output.

What neither of us has, though, is data. I don't have any charts that proves how many mult-screen systems are out there and what %% they are, and you don't have any balance sheets proving how much it costs gamesas to support it.

So... in the end it's just a thought experiment. If my guess on the numbers is right, then I'm right. If your guess on the numbers is right, then you're right.

Wow... that's hardcoe dude .

I still think those gaps between the screens would ruin the experience... If only you could fix that some how

I do however know what triple monitor support is - support for wide resolutions and fields of view. That's all. No special behavior on triple monitor systems, no special cases, just building a renderer that goes wide and a UI that scales appropriately. So many of these things actually don't cost anything at all, you just build the system with that in mind. It's not a case of costs, or whether it's good returns, it's simply good programming.