Oh no, it's yet another 'new PC for Railworks' question

jp4712 · Post by **jp4712** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:03 pm

I'm thinking of getting this: http://www.chillblast.com/Chillblast-Fusion-Mamba.html

I have two questions. Firstly, should I get the RAM upgrade from 8Gb to 16Gb? And secondly and more importantly, I would very much like to run RW on three monitors, and the GTX 680 allegedly supports this natively. So my question is, can one now dispense with Matrox Triple Head in order to have the game spread across three monitors if you have this video card?

Paul

secludedsfx · Post by **secludedsfx** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:23 pm

For the system that's a very nice price.
Ram wise you wouldn't need to up the RAM to 16GB for TS2012.
Also I would think that with triple monitor it would work natively but i'm not sure.

eyore · Post by **eyore** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:56 pm

Looks like a nice system.

Have a look at this thread regarding 120gb SSD, may be of interest. http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=120422 Particularly note the impact of RAM size on the amount of disc space windows grabs. Not much room left for trainsim.

jp4712 · Post by **jp4712** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:57 pm

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I'm going for the bigger SSD. But the Matrox Triple Head is the main issue, any more thoughts on whether or not that's needed with the GTX 680?

Paul

gptech · Post by **gptech** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:06 am

As you've said, indications are that the 680 will support a triple monitor setup natively, but until that's been tested and results posted how can we in the back waters say?
One thing to consider<cynical>: being able to run on 3 monitors is different from being able to run well on 3 monitors.....triple monitor support could just be another box to tick</cynical>

flightsimflier · Post by **flightsimflier** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:15 am

I just clicked on the link to your intended purchase and drooled on my keyboard. Cheers for that.

ihavenonamenoreallyidont · Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:30 am

gptech wrote:As you've said, indications are that the 680 will support a triple monitor setup natively, but until that's been tested and results posted how can we in the back waters say?
One thing to consider<cynical>: being able to run on 3 monitors is different from being able to run well on 3 monitors.....triple monitor support could just be another box to tick</cynical>

Bingo.

I run a single 580 and it's quite challenged with some Nvidia 3D Vision activities, eg Metro 2033. Basically, the screen is rendered twice in 1920x1080 for single screen 3D. For standard triple vision, wouldn't this be three times?

Mind you, sounds like you already run three monitors so depending on the resolution you're running, this may not be relevant to you.

Makeone · Post by **Makeone** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:40 pm

ihavenonamenoreallyidont wrote:
gptech wrote:As you've said, indications are that the 680 will support a triple monitor setup natively, but until that's been tested and results posted how can we in the back waters say?
One thing to consider<cynical>: being able to run on 3 monitors is different from being able to run well on 3 monitors.....triple monitor support could just be another box to tick</cynical>
Bingo.

I run a single 580 and it's quite challenged with some Nvidia 3D Vision activities, eg Metro 2033. Basically, the screen is rendered twice in 1920x1080 for single screen 3D. For standard triple vision, wouldn't this be three times?

Mind you, sounds like you already run three monitors so depending on the resolution you're running, this may not be relevant to you.

Why three times? it's more likely (3x1920)x1080 ie. 5760x1080. Hmm, doesn't our video master (ms....umm

) run triple monitors with 'real' GPU, not Matrox one....

Very droolable machine, i have to admit that. Kinda odd, that they don't play 2Tbyte HDD in that price, the diffrence between 1 and 2 is...small..ish

jp4712 · Post by **jp4712** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:59 am

I don't currently run three monitors, although I can see how my first post could be read that way. The question was posed so that I know whether or not I need to invest in a Matrox gizmo. Anyway, rig ordered now, i'll get it and see what's what in a couple of weeks.

Paul

ihavenonamenoreallyidont · Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:19 am

The resolution would be (3x1920)x1080 but you still have three different 1080 elements which are not identical hence the required 3x processing power. Isn't (3x1920)x(3x1080) ultimately being rendered despite the overall resolution being 5760x1080?

I must admit I am totally ignorant in terms of how a triple display works, though, so perhaps there's an element of overlap in each display meaning less rendering is required than the 3x detailed above.

Anyway, be interested to hear how it all pans out. Certainly going to be a nice set-up. Most of the cash is tied up in the 680, that's for sure.

Makeone · Post by **Makeone** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:02 pm

ihavenonamenoreallyidont wrote:The resolution would be (3x1920)x1080 but you still have three different 1080 elements which are not identical hence the required 3x processing power. Isn't (3x1920)x(3x1080) ultimately being rendered despite the overall resolution being 5760x1080?

I must admit I am totally ignorant in terms of how a triple display works, though, so perhaps there's an element of overlap in each display meaning less rendering is required than the 3x detailed above.

Anyway, be interested to hear how it all pans out. Certainly going to be a nice set-up. Most of the cash is tied up in the 680, that's for sure.

I have come to the conclusion that GPU process it as one 5760 x 1080 image and then the part that sends the imagedata to monitor does the splitting up. I could be wrong tho...

And now that checked, UKTS's Video Master is Msdejesus and like i said, he posts huge panoramic pictures that are most likely taken on the setup above.

jp4712 · Post by **jp4712** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:03 pm

* BUMP *

Well, I am in TS2012 nirvana. The screenshots below have been reduced from the full 5760 x 1080 size, as I was taking a little jolly along the Settle & Carlisle. They will expand to 1200 pixels wide if you click on them but even then it really doesn't do the effect justice.

The settings are MSAA x 8; and EVERYTHING maxed except view distance = medium and I have depth of field and bloom switched off (but I do have procedural flora, that FPS killer, turned on). The frame rate on the journey depicted below hovered at around 70. On WCML-N I get 25-60 depending on the location and AI. I don't think I have seen a FPS figure of 14 once - oh no, I think I did very briefly when I drove a steamer just outside Manchester Londo Road (Woodhead) in view 4 and the camera was above the track. As the smoke particles hit the camera, it dipped to 14 for about half a second.

I can confirm that with the GTX 680 card, you do NOT need a Matrox Triple Head2go in order for the 3 x 1 monitor configuration to work - I think Nvidia have just put Matrox out of business.

If I have a gripe it's that towards the far left and right edges you get a bit of 'wide angle lens' distortion but playing with the FOV settings in the launcher showed that if you change the value to reduce the effect, the centre of the screen is too zoomed in. I need to experiment more but believe me, I am NEVER playing this game with 'only' one monitor again.

A very happy bunny

Paul

Tornado cab: notice distortion at right and left edges, and slight clipping at left.

Darpor · Post by **Darpor** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:08 pm

Very, very impressive there Paul.

Did you go with just the 8gb, or 16gb in the end?

jp4712 · Post by **jp4712** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:12 pm

16. And to be honest I'm glad, not just for TS2012 but also stuff like Photoshop.

smarty2 · Post by **smarty2** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:43 pm

Nice, another pool of drool on my keyboard now!

Atomic Systems