Simpit Outside Visualization

bpops

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Alamos
Website
picasaweb.google.com
The current built in engine can't do it. I can't remember the reason (it is somewhere in this forum though) but any OVP client won't have that limitation. I am not sure about the DX7 client of the current in-dev version, but as Martin simply detached it from the core I doubt it broke that limitation.

I can verify that the curent Direct X OVP client does not run in the higher resolutions. :(
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Someone mentioned that Orbiter Direct X should be capable of outputting to the full Matrox TH2G resolution (3840 x 1024 if I remember right). Is this something that could be 'easily' fixed? Or does anyone even know why Orbiter crashes at resolution of over ~2000px wide?

BTW, full TH2G Digital is 5040x1050 (3x 22") while the old obsolete TH2G analog is only 3840x1024. I would prefer the idea be to push the capability to not need a $300 Matrox box though. While I do have them (th2g digital, th2g analog and 2x dh2g digital), the average player would not. It's an unneeded expense if properly accounted for in the client.
 

bpops

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Alamos
Website
picasaweb.google.com
BTW, full TH2G Digital is 5040x1050 (3x 22") while the old obsolete TH2G analog is only 3840x1024. I would prefer the idea be to push the capability to not need a $300 Matrox box though. While I do have them (th2g digital, th2g analog and 2x dh2g digital), the average player would not. It's an unneeded expense if properly accounted for in the client.

I don't understand this comment. All the box does is output the resolution given to it to three monitors -- the computer sees the box as a single very wide monitor. To 'not need' it has nothing at all to do with Orbiter, it has to do with the size monitors available. Fixing the resolution limit on Orbiter would solve the problem by itself, with no concern for the TH2G.

Also, I do have an analog TH2G, that's why I put 3840.. bought mine just before they released the digital version :)
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,632
Reaction score
2
Points
0
I don't understand this comment. All the box does is output the resolution given to it to three monitors -- the computer sees the box as a single very wide monitor. To 'not need' it has nothing at all to do with Orbiter, it has to do with the size monitors available. Fixing the resolution limit on Orbiter would solve the problem by itself, with no concern for the TH2G.

I believe he's referring to the suggestions that have been thrown around to make Orbiter behave like FSX on multiple monitors.
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't understand this comment. All the box does is output the resolution given to it to three monitors -- the computer sees the box as a single very wide monitor. To 'not need' it has nothing at all to do with Orbiter, it has to do with the size monitors available. Fixing the resolution limit on Orbiter would solve the problem by itself, with no concern for the TH2G.

Also, I do have an analog TH2G, that's why I put 3840.. bought mine just before they released the digital version :)

To clarify it to you in such a way that might make more sense... The client could be coded to have similar features as MSFS where you can open several camera windows. That way you just throw as many camera windows open as you have video outs to screens. No need for a $300 chunk of hardware from Matrox. That'll require work to achieve though. The only reason why TH2G exists is because the lack of foresight by the 3D client developers. If they had multi-display in mind to begin with the TH2G would be a real expensive paperweight. A hardware solution sets the bar way too high for multi-display options. One should not have to be required to fork out $300 to play games on multi-screen. It's already expensive enough to have to buy multi-display without adding in a hardware splitter box from Matrox. I'm saying this as a person that has had a TH2G since the first week the analog was released and I have all of them DH2G and TH2G analog and digital. I didn't buy them because I liked Matrox. I bought them because game developers don't have the foresight to make games multi-display.
 

TSPenguin

The Seeker
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
4
Points
0
It is entirely possible to run in windowed mode and eliminate the need for a hardware solution. How well this will do for outputing to screens on different cards, I do not know.
AFAIK it should be no problem at all connecting two OVP clients to the core. How one will control them I do not know, but there should be a simple solution codable that does not require tabbing (AutoHotKey i.e.) if such a feature is not included.
/2cents
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,632
Reaction score
2
Points
0
It is entirely possible to run in windowed mode and eliminate the need for a hardware solution. How well this will do for outputing to screens on different cards, I do not know.
AFAIK it should be no problem at all connecting two OVP clients to the core. How one will control them I do not know, but there should be a simple solution codable that does not require tabbing (AutoHotKey i.e.) if such a feature is not included.
/2cents

Windowed mode is currently undesirable due to the window frame.
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Windowed mode is currently undesirable due to the window frame.

There are some games that allow the window frame to be turned off in preferences for windowed mode. Warhammer Online has a great implementation of that particular option as an example. It's still "windowed mode" but has no frame rendered.
 

TSPenguin

The Seeker
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
4
Points
0
I know a lot of programs that don't care about the current resolution when drawing there window and allow for the frame to be out of the visible area. By specifying the current resolution they either draw the 3D with already frames out of bounds or require you to move the window a bit.
It should be easy to implement a frameless solution, I have seen quite a few applications that don't have frames.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,632
Reaction score
2
Points
0
There are some games that allow the window frame to be turned off in preferences for windowed mode. Warhammer Online has a great implementation of that particular option as an example. It's still "windowed mode" but has no frame rendered.

Yup, World of Warcraft has the same thing. It has an option for "Windowed Mode" which is in a normal window, and then it has a sub-option for "Maximize" which brings it to full size and hides the frame. I always played in maximized windowed mode, because the performance wasn't noticeably worse than fullscreen, but I could alt-tab in a quarter of a second rather than five seconds.
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I know a lot of programs that don't care about the current resolution when drawing there window and allow for the frame to be out of the visible area. By specifying the current resolution they either draw the 3D with already frames out of bounds or require you to move the window a bit.
It should be easy to implement a frameless solution, I have seen quite a few applications that don't have frames.

The example I'm speaking of actually doesn't render the frame at all, instead of pushing it outside of the viewable area. With multi-display you need it not to render the window frame or it'll push it into the other displays.
 

TSPenguin

The Seeker
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
4
Points
0
The example I'm speaking of actually doesn't render the frame at all, instead of pushing it outside of the viewable area. With multi-display you need it not to render the window frame or it'll push it into the other displays.

I understand that. Good point. And now that you mentioned it, it is really annoying. But as I said earlier, an OVP client should easily be made frameless. I'll talk to Artlav about it.
I have a vague memory of a tool (quite old though) that could remove the frame from some games, maybe such an application could be used on the current incarnation of orbiter.
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Seems like it'll be pretty cool conceptually. Single core with multiple instances of OVP pushing to seperate screens each with their own camera settings.

Could this work across several machines? Just have OVP on another machine point to a network directory of the core? How does the transfer of information work between OVP and the core? If it doesn't work that way can it be made to work that way?

On a single machine, you could push to up to 14 displays using the new ASUS P6T7 motherboard. With what I have sitting around I could only push to 8 displays per motherboard though. My test setup will probably be using a 4-slot PCIe 16x mobo with each video card having 2 outs = 8 Dell P1110 21" CRT displays. I could mix in up to 3 projectors for front view. Should be a very interesting proof of concept for those wanting to simpit build. Although it will look like a jumble of hardware without the simpit shell, but that's not the point. ;)

Testbed hardware:
1143381458901.jpg
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,632
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Seems like it'll be pretty cool conceptually. Single core with multiple instances of OVP pushing to seperate screens each with their own camera settings.

Could this work across several machines? Just have OVP on another machine point to a network directory of the core? How does the transfer of information work between OVP and the core? If it doesn't work that way can it be made to work that way?
Don't think it would be that easy.

On a single machine, you could push to up to 14 displays using the new ASUS P6T7 motherboard. With what I have sitting around I could only push to 8 displays per motherboard though.
"only"....
My test setup will probably be using a 4-slot PCIe 16x mobo with each video card having 2 outs = 8 Dell P1110 21" CRT displays.
What mobo is that?
Testbed hardware:
1143381458901.jpg
I would like to move that your forum subtitle (or whatever it's called, the thing next to your name on the left) be changed to "More disposable income than you.":OMG:
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
$150 Foxconn Destroyer mobo and 4 $150 GTX260. I was unaware that my "disposable income" has any relevance in this forum. ;)
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,632
Reaction score
2
Points
0
$150 Foxconn Destroyer mobo and 4 $150 GTX260. I was unaware that my "disposable income" has any relevance in this forum. ;)
Where are you getting these things so cheap?!
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm a mod over at EVGA's community forums. I typically know of all the cheap deals, because I have to police the marketplace subforums there for potential fraud posts. Most of that stuff is either employee pricing program or b-stock from various sources.

The prices have been really tanking on the GTX260 variants lately. The 4 GPU PSUs and the regular PSU are all Thermaltake b-stock. The CPU Cooler is a used buy. The Phenom II 940BE CPU was bought on sale. The ram was also deep discount at Newegg with rebate. The 2 WD HDs are pulls from an older system of mine. Makes for $1000 or less total depending on how you figure up costs. I might get a b-stock Thermaltake case for the build. Not made up my mind yet. It it's been working perfectly well on the table like that for awhile now.
 

BHawthorne

Simpit Builder
Donator
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
A small update on things. I went ahead and changed projector types because standard projection lens throw is just too long. I've picked up three Optoma EX525ST a few weeks ago and am in the process of building a surround-screen gaming room in what was storage in the basement. The room is 13x13 foot.

Here is a current "in progress" build shot:
dscf3741f.jpg


Here is 2 of the 3 projectors and a few Matrox GXM boxes I have for use:
dscf3649.jpg
 
Last edited:

baden03

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Hamburg
Hello. It seems every year when the weather lends itself to inside projects, I turn my attention back to the ultimate Simpit. Normally this process involves getting re-addicted to Orbiter--but this year it started with this graphics card I just ran across: http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_series/m9188pciex16/
Single 2 GB graphics card that can output to eight (8!) separate 1920x1200 displays.
not sure on price, but I am sure it is in the 'if you have to ask' range.
 

yagni01

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Atlanta, GA
Hello. It seems every year when the weather lends itself to inside projects, I turn my attention back to the ultimate Simpit. Normally this process involves getting re-addicted to Orbiter--but this year it started with this graphics card I just ran across: http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_series/m9188pciex16/
Single 2 GB graphics card that can output to eight (8!) separate 1920x1200 displays.
not sure on price, but I am sure it is in the 'if you have to ask' range.
Looks like $2K. . .Eek! C'mon, RemoteOGLA!
 
Top