Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

6 Monitor Display on ATI 5000 series.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Would having your game split across 6 different monitors on a crazy resolution bug you?

Total: 0 vote

  • Yes
  • 0 %
  • No
  • 0 %
  • Maybe
  • 0 %
  • Only some games
  • 0 %
  • noTrace, you're a big n00b, who wouldn't like that
  • 0 %
September 17, 2009 4:56:20 AM

Personally, i don't like the idea of my game being split into sections.. i feel like i would be missing important things that would be split like i dunno...CROSS HAIRS?!?!
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2009 5:12:18 AM

Game on one screen, AIM/Livemessenger/etc and temperature/hardware monitor on the other...
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 17, 2009 5:31:40 AM

It doesn't bother me as much as those people who whine about it as if ATi were forcing everyone to play on 6 screens. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]
Related resources
September 17, 2009 5:32:19 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
Game on one screen, AIM/Livemessenger/etc and temperature/hardware monitor on the other...


you can already do that now. I think he's just referring to the idea of having the game split. I think it would suck with current monitors. Wait till ultra thin bezels come out, or bezelless 6 displays already mounted... Then it will be pretty sweet but expensive
September 17, 2009 5:34:57 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
It doesn't bother me as much as those people who whine about it as if ATi were forcing everyone to play on 6 screens. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]


Thank you greatape, exactly my thoughts. The technology is progressing. It's finally here now, would you rather pay 300 for matrox triplehead2go? Having the option and the ability is what it's all about.
September 17, 2009 5:38:19 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
It doesn't bother me as much as those people who whine about it as if ATi were forcing everyone to play on 6 screens. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]


Oh ho, but little do you know GrapeApe that at this VERY moment there is an ATI Representative behind me with a gun to my head forcing me to play on all six monitors...oh god! The HORROR! THE INHUMANITY! IT HURTS MY EYES!!!...

No seriously though, I'm not whining, i think its a great capability for many gamers, I'm just wondering if I'm the only who who things it'd be odd to play games like that, at least ultra competitively.
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2009 5:39:38 AM

notrace said:
Personally, i don't like the idea of my game being split into sections.. i feel like i would be missing important things that would be split like i dunno...CROSS HAIRS?!?!


You are catastrophically missing the point.

The great thing about this tech is not what it brings to current games on current monitors but what it can bring given a patch or two, and a bit of a change in the way displays are looked at.

You are living in a 2d world where you assume the display has to be flat. This brings us surround gaming, something far more exciting than building a wall if screens larger than could be practically done with a single LCD.

I will entirely agree that the center of the display will absolutely have to be on a single display (or a least across a bezel less border). But the possibilities we get from something like this, provided you open yourself to some imagination, are very neat.

Already current games confine the basic parts of the game to the center of the screen, to a certain aspect ratio. If you have ever played with a triple head to go you will notice that in most games what you get playing at 3*1680*1050 on the middle display is almost identical to what you get on a single display except that the HUD is moved to the far reaches. (something that given the market is easy to make variable if a studio bothers). You are not 'losing' anything by having the borders, you are expanding your peripheral vision beyond what it currently is (which is, of course, zero).

There are many examples of current and older games where this won't work, where the engine is not sufficient enough to add peripheral vision, and you run into problems. But that is not using much of the imagination we all are wonderfully gifted with. There is no reason the way Dev's treat a display has to remain flat. It is a very simple task to modify a shooter to have the HUD confined to a certain proportion of the screen, and have 'wing' pixels represent side, and even rear, parts of the screen. Imagine gaming with screens all around you. Sure, the bezels will still be there (of course depending on future tech) but what the extra pixels provide is the freedom to expand the game. You could play crysis just like everyone else, or you could play with the ability to be shooting and running in one direction while you glance beside you to check out the scene. I am not a game developer, I am sure the things that I can dream up are inferior to what someone at Crytek could come up with.. But it is set ups like this that has had me interested in multi display technology for a long time.

I am ecstatic to see that the resolution cap that matrox was stuck with (may the company rest in the peace of their business products from now on) is now gone.

Now we can have a display with effectively limitless pixels. Developers can start adding the freedom to change what each section of our now more than adequate displays can, well, display.

You may not find it important now.. but given a little while for this to mature (and of course for nvidia to hop on board.. as they will be forced to do rather quickly) you will want in.. everyone who is serious about games will. It may not seem like fun now.. but imagine when some games start allowing us to designate x*y pixels to be the action.. while another block (another screen in the real world.. at least until I get my OLED 'roll up' surround booth.. lol) shows a detailed mini map, or another angle of the action should you be playing an RTS. Imagine having the screen real estate to have your mission objectives, economy etc. all up at one time. Any fans of 4x's will be drooling over the amount of screen space we will be able to assign to empire trees without hindering our central display's view of the actual game.

Besides that, why would you have to center teh 3*2 block of displays on a border. Sure, you won't see a game right now that allows you to play slightly shifted to the left or right.. but it is not all that hard of a thing to do.. place the focus of the screen at -100, 0 instead of 0,0.

In addition to all of the fun things games might start to include if many gamers are now playing on triple wide (or whatever) display tech will change. There was up until now (except for some very special applications) no reason for a display manufacturer to care about how thick the frame of a display was, beyond practical size limitations. Really.. there is no reason the edges can't be 1mm wide clear plastic now, who knows what they will come up with when the LCD is predominately replaced by an OLED.

Granted, there are limiting factors.. but to poo poo the entire thing because of a short sighted assumption on its limitation is not wise. It may in fact lead to you getting ganked by someone who can look to their left in real time in only a short few months. ;) 

EDIT: I can't type tonight.. sorry for the type oh's.. also, I am not meaning to come off as attacking.. merely to point out the potential to this. Of course the short term gains may depend on the green team coming out with similar and not running a "multi-display gaming kills people" add campaign. I really hope this can easily be adopted by every gpu manufacturer so I can see real creative use in games in the near future. Blah blah blah, sick of gaming being held back for the politics of the business and all that...
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 17, 2009 5:43:36 AM

Ultra-competitively it's almost always about the single monitor, because everyone wants their refresh to be faster than their opponent, even if it's 200fps vs 250fps.

Really I think the 6 layout is far from ideal unless it's rear-projection; the 3 monitor layout has been seen as the best-fit since the Parhelia, and having played it many times it's awesome, especially when using projectors.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 17, 2009 5:48:39 AM

daedalus685 said:

You are living in a 2d world where you assume the display has to be flat. This brings us surround gaming, something far more exciting than building a wall if screens larger than could be practically done with a single LCD...

...Really.. there is no reason the edges can't be 1mm wide clear plastic now, who knows what they will come up with when the LCD is predominately replaced by an OLED.


Yeah and once they perfect the printing process and you can essentially buy OLED wall-paper, that's when it's going to be interesting, where you can truly make and immersive experience, like going to bed on the beach in Bermuda where the sunset shuts down your computer, and waking up on a Mountain top in NewZealand as the computer is you alarm clock. :sol: 

People need to think outside the limited implementations we've seen sofar.
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2009 5:50:26 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Ultra-competitively it's almost always about the single monitor, because everyone wants their refresh to be faster than their opponent, even if it's 200fps vs 250fps.

Really I think the 6 layout is far from ideal unless it's rear-projection; the 3 monitor layout has been seen as the best-fit since the Parhelia, and having played it many times it's awesome, especially when using projectors.


Aye, Certainly with current displays 3*1 is better than 2*3. Unless of course you assign the top three to be above your sight line and the middle screen of the bottom row forward. Certainly ways around the bezel issue that would add to game play.. even if it would be a bit pricey to give you the sky for the cost of 3 LCDs..

I don't so much see this eyefinity business as the next best thing.. But this technology has been something I've found cool since I played mechwarrior in a sim pod ages ago. I'm sure the current implementation is going to have issues.. But I see it as an important (and ever really awesome) stepping stone to the advancement of what a display is. If no one steps up and says "hey look at this cool stuff" there will be no reason to evolve in any fast paced rate, and damn it, I want surround gaming before Mechwarrior 5 :D 
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 17, 2009 5:58:03 AM

I want surround gaming, and I want the VR wall, but really, evolution will do beyond what a display is, to do you need a display?

The work with reading rats' (or mice?) dreams with magnetic imaging of the cortex to me is an indication of the 'end-game' where a pair of reverse glassed go on the back of your head or are part of a head-rest/chair and then you simply beam in the visuals.

Of course that will come not only after my VR wall but after my death I'm sure; likely from the shock of my VR wall when it has the Blue Shark Screen of Death !! ;) 
September 17, 2009 6:00:19 AM

daedalus685 said:
You are catastrophically missing the point.

The great thing about this tech is not what it brings to current games on current monitors but what it can bring given a patch or two, and a bit of a change in the way displays are looked at.

You are living in a 2d world where you assume the display has to be flat. This brings us surround gaming, something far more exciting than building a wall if screens larger than could be practically done with a single LCD.

I will entirely agree that the center of the display will absolutely have to be on a single display (or a least across a bezel less border). But the possibilities we get from something like this, provided you open yourself to some imagination, are very neat.

Already current games confine the basic parts of the game to the center of the screen, to a certain aspect ratio. If you have ever played with a triple head to go you will notice that in most games what you get playing at 3*1680*1050 on the middle display is almost identical to what you get on a single display except that the HUD is moved to the far reaches. (something that given the market is easy to make variable if a studio bothers). You are not 'losing' anything by having the borders, you are expanding your peripheral vision beyond what it currently is (which is, of course, zero).

There are many examples of current and older games where this won't work, where the engine is not sufficient enough to add peripheral vision, and you run into problems. But that is not using much of the imagination we all are wonderfully gifted with. There is no reason the way Dev's treat a display has to remain flat. It is a very simple task to modify a shooter to have the HUD confined to a certain proportion of the screen, and have 'wing' pixels represent side, and even rear, parts of the screen. Imagine gaming with screens all around you. Sure, the bezels will still be there (of course depending on future tech) but what the extra pixels provide is the freedom to expand the game. You could play crysis just like everyone else, or you could play with the ability to be shooting and running in one direction while you glance beside you to check out the scene. I am not a game developer, I am sure the things that I can dream up are inferior to what someone at Crytek could come up with.. But it is set ups like this that has had me interested in multi display technology for a long time.

I am ecstatic to see that the resolution cap that matrox was stuck with (may the company rest in the peace of their business products from now on) is now gone.

Now we can have a display with effectively limitless pixels. Developers can start adding the freedom to change what each section of our now more than adequate displays can, well, display.

You may not find it important now.. but given a little while for this to mature (and of course for nvidia to hop on board.. as they will be forced to do rather quickly) you will want in.. everyone who is serious about games will. It may not seem like fun now.. but imagine when some games start allowing us to designate x*y pixels to be the action.. while another block (another screen in the real world.. at least until I get my OLED 'roll up' surround booth.. lol) shows a detailed mini map, or another angle of the action should you be playing an RTS. Imagine having the screen real estate to have your mission objectives, economy etc. all up at one time. Any fans of 4x's will be drooling over the amount of screen space we will be able to assign to empire trees without hindering our central display's view of the actual game.

Besides that, why would you have to center teh 3*2 block of displays on a border. Sure, you won't see a game right now that allows you to play slightly shifted to the left or right.. but it is not all that hard of a thing to do.. place the focus of the screen at -100, 0 instead of 0,0.

In addition to all of the fun things games might start to include if many gamers are now playing on triple wide (or whatever) display tech will change. There was up until now (except for some very special applications) no reason for a display manufacturer to care about how thick the frame of a display was, beyond practical size limitations. Really.. there is no reason the edges can't be 1mm wide clear plastic now, who knows what they will come up with when the LCD is predominately replaced by an OLED.

Granted, there are limiting factors.. but to poo poo the entire thing because of a short sighted assumption on its limitation is not wise. It may in fact lead to you getting ganked by someone who can look to their left in real time in only a short few months. ;) 

EDIT: I can't type tonight.. sorry for the type oh's.. also, I am not meaning to come off as attacking.. merely to point out the potential to this. Of course the short term gains may depend on the green team coming out with similar and not running a "multi-display gaming kills people" add campaign. I really hope this can easily be adopted by every gpu manufacturer so I can see real creative use in games in the near future. Blah blah blah, sick of gaming being held back for the politics of the business and all that...


Jesus man, that's deep...

Makes perfect sense though haha.

I just wouldn't be able to adjust to having 2 inches of monitor frame in between my LCD's, but who knows, maybe they'll come out with some super monitor soon that i can blow thousands on!
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2009 6:02:03 AM

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the works of people like Ray Kurzwiel Ape, but don't count out your dream machine in your lifetime just yet, nor other equally amazing things.

Its funny how everyone always wants a bigger and bigger display.. when in reality the smaller and closer the display is.. the more realistic it would become. One day, I'm sure. I think I merely want more realism, however that comes. Always has to be a path to the end though, surround screens are just one step.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 17, 2009 6:40:28 AM

Yeah that's why I think that will be the evolution of things where it's moving towards either very compacted micro-sceen style lense or else the magnetic influence. I never understood people's love of implants versus non-invasive though, especially since I can remove a simillar device, but not an implant.

The reason I want the big VR wall is that technically it should be cheap once OLED is perfected to true commercial ink-jet printing scale, and I think that is something I would appreciate as both a TV and a chanageable wall hanging/tapestry/poster/window to the world, etc.

Not familiar with Ray's work, but a quick Google & Wiki have given me a little reading for tomorrow.
September 17, 2009 6:49:09 AM

To have a choice is always nice. While bezel might be annoying in some cases (or doesnt matter in others - like racing or flight sims) Samsung already making almost borderless LCDs , other manufacturers will follow. Also OLED isnt so far in the future, with reasonable price I wouldnt mind getting a piece of it along with Eyefinity ;-)
a c 106 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 17, 2009 6:51:17 PM

I'm happy with my one 22" screen. I think the 6 screen idea would be cool for things like flight sims, but for racing games and shooters the space between the monitors, even a small space, would drive me crazy :D .
September 17, 2009 8:32:45 PM

megamanx00 said:
I'm happy with my one 22" screen. I think the 6 screen idea would be cool for things like flight sims, but for racing games and shooters the space between the monitors, even a small space, would drive me crazy :D .


Exactly my point!
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2009 8:58:18 PM

I find the horizontal line on the 6 monitor setup very distracting in the utube videos. I think 3 monitors in portrait I would be ok with in most games. Even the 3 monitor landscape in the racing game demo is OK.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
September 17, 2009 11:20:52 PM

When I can afford 6 1080p projectors (so the edges can precisely match), I'll love it. Until then, I'll stick with 1 large, high resolution display.
September 19, 2009 9:05:33 PM

imagine this, monitors with removable borders so 2 or more lcd screen would be in contact with each other and attached with extended bridges from the back of each monitors so there would be little to no movement between each monitor.buy 6 monitors, remove the boarders, attach from behind, have 6 monitors running eyefinity with no boarders.
i must wake up from this dream.
!