[oyvind]

Hi,

First, an example: Operation Flashpoint, you are controlling a squad of soldiers and need to know where everyone is at all times. This is quite hard, due to the limited "viewport" into the gaming arena. The near 180 degree vision we have in real life is effectively reduced to 90 degrees in games and this affects the feeling of "being there" a lot.
ATI/nvidia support two monitors, matrox supports 3. A two monitor setup is quite useless in most action games, due to the fact that most of the action happens right in front of you and there you have a large area of monitor frame, dividing the image in two.
Matrox solves this problem by adding a center monitor so that we have a clear view of the action in front.
So: Matrox has a great configuration, but crappy (unplayable) performance.
ATI and Nvidia have a crappy configuration but great performance.

So, experts @ B3D:
Why doesn't ATI/Nvidia support more than two monitors?

Can this shortcoming be remedied by the upcoming SLI Configurations we all await? (Alienware/Nvidia/Ati(?)) ?

Let's say that the two graphics cards both support two monitors, maybe it would have been an idea to split all these signals onto four monitors instead of joining them together into one/two?
Of course, a horizontal four monitor setup is no better than a two one but maybe the forth monitor could be placed above/below the center one, for resource view or whatever. (or even better, the two cards load balance the processing of the three monitors, which after all, are just an image, streched across several displays)

Or is this impossible?

Øyvind

[Dio]

I think there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation here. Very few games have made good (any!) use of a second monitor, let alone a third, so second monitors aren't a big draw in the gaming field, so not many gamers have them, so few games use them... repeat.

For a squad-based game, I would have said two monitors would be fine, and onto the second monitor you render four boxes with four different views of the 'other' soldiers (that aren't you).

Also, of course, games that are going for realism might not want you to allow you to see the circumstances outside your own head.

(Personally I'd bite someones hand off for a second monitor in Warcraft 3 that had three boxes: left side of screen a large map with stats underneath, right side two 3D views: one a view of my base, other the 'most interesting' battle currently being fought that I'm not already watching on the main screen. That would get my games desk a second monitor upgrade in about as long as it took Scan to get one here. But there you go.)

[oyvind]

But isn't the reason that gamers don't use multi monitor and that games don't support multi monitor because there is no hardware solution to do this! I'm convinced that if support for three monitors were available on ATI/Nvidia high end cards, this setup would become quite common!

Of course a player must not see more than the character normally would see but a near 180 degree of vision with a 3 monitor setup would only give the player the same view as the character in the game!

So I'm very interested to know: Is it possible to use more than two monitors when the dual gfx (sli) systems appear?

[pcchen]

I think it should be possible. The earliest Windows support for "dual monitor" is actually through two cards. i.e. you put two video cards and you can hook up two monitors. However, since drivers are not always compatible, there are some restrictions on which video cards you can use for dual monitor configuration. Of course, they are all PCI video cards, and I am not sure about whether 3D support is still avaiable at such configuration.

[Dave Baumann]

ATI supports 3 monitors with their integrated mothboard chipset and the use of another dual monitor capable monitor - normally chipsets will turn off the integrated video when something is placed in the AGP port, but you can tell 9100 IGP to remain on; I believe the integrated still has 3D acceleration.

NVIDIA also make dual chip low end Quadro's for the likes of banks and financial houses that need to drive 4 displays. I think thats the problem though - there is very little market need to make this worthwhile for desktops.

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by pcchen

Of course, they are all PCI video cards, and I am not sure about whether 3D support is still avaiable at such configuration.

Yep, it is, and Windows does a pretty good job at handling it, too. I once did this with a TNT and a S3 Virge, and it actually worked. I could even drag a 3D window between the two monitors. It was kinda cool to see it run well on my TNT, and then slide it over to the Virge and watch the game slow to a crawl. When mixing cards like this, there may, obviously, be issues with supporting different featuresets, but it shouldn't be too bad.

[Dio]

Originally Posted by oyvind

But isn't the reason that gamers don't use multi monitor and that games don't support multi monitor because there is no hardware solution to do this! I'm convinced that if support for three monitors were available on ATI/Nvidia high end cards, this setup would become quite common!

Just about every card sold in the last three or four years supports dual monitor, but game support for it is still largely nonexistent. The problem is that game developers don't see this as important, we hardware developers do but the feature is rarely used.

Three is more useful than two for FPS, but I highly doubt if there would be more triple monitor users than dual monitor users because of space and cost issues.

[Vadi]

That's sad. If there was a gaming card with three outputs I would buy it because nearly every game I play (FPS, sims) would support "surround gaming". CRTs are cheap now and 3 17" displays would be 100 times better that any dual or single display in the same price range.

[Kaizer]

Originally Posted by Vadi

That's sad. If there was a gaming card with three outputs I would buy it because nearly every game I play (FPS, sims) would support "surround gaming". CRTs are cheap now and 3 17" displays would be 100 times better that any dual or single display in the same price range.

And would I be correct that it would matter much for these games that the number of monitors be odd (1, 3) as opposed even (2) as the monitor borders would ruin gameplay if they occur at the middle of the viewframe (eg having half a HUD on each display, having the crosshair be 1cm high and 7-8 wide in practice)..?

It's obvious that triplehead/surroundview/three displays would be much more practically applicable for gaming than would two.

Ah, I'd really like cruising the skies or commanding my fellow flashpointees without having to franticly peek around virtually..