Parhelia experience

[Typedef Enum]

About the comment(s) relating to LCD's...

I've got 2 of them right now, the Dell 2000FP's. In short, these babies kick ass when it comes to gaming. With that said, I can tell you from personal experience that not all LCD's are created equal (an obvious statement). I went through this deal of shuffling between many different displays, and there were a fair number of LCD's that did, indeed, suck for gaming.

I do believe, however, that panels which have been released within the past 6-12 months are likely to be much better.

One thing that's pretty clear, as it relates to Surround Gaming, is the fact that it's really not totally imperative that you have massively awesome displays for the peripheral (IE the 2 side displays).

In my current setup, I've got my old 19" Hitachi CRT on the left hand side, while the 2nd Dell 2000FP is on the right. The Dell is clearly a superior display in every single aspect over the CRT...But when you're playing a game, you will obviously not concentrate on what you see out of the side displays...It's really weird, but I'm sure you can understand what I'm talking about. Your eyes will be focused on the center, but you will definitely be aware of the images coming out of the side displays.

The point here is that I feel that you could definitely get away with using cheap displays on the left/right, and it won't diminish the experience at all. So, it's not as if you have to purchase a whole bunch of high-end displays in order to _really_ achieve the Surround Gaming experience.

The really kool thing, as has been mentioned in some of the S.G. reviews (like FiringSquad), is the fact that you can be playing a game like MOH and turn your head to see people coming at you from the sides. It's a real trip to see it happen before your eyes. On a few occassions, I have purposely focused my eyes just so I could see them coming.

In the last day, I have tried the following 2 games as well...

- DeusEx
- Tribes2

Once the UT2003 demo is released, they're supposed to update the S.G. site with instructions. Heck, in thinking about it, I'm willing to bet that you will use the same procedure for UT2003 as you would with any Unreal-engine game...so I think I'll give that one a whirl as well.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Type...

Could you clarify a configuration issue? I believe I read that "triple head" does not support 3 digital outputs. Max of two digital and one is analog. Correct?

Not that it really matters too much, as most flat panels will accept analog input at some loss of quality anyway. (And for a peripheral view, as you noted, not really necessary.)

Personally, I would still choose the 9700 over the Parhelia for a primary gaming rig, considering the performance difference. That being said, I would be willing to pay extra bucks for a triple head card vs. a comparable performance non-triple head card, as I do agree it offers a significant new dimension to gaming.

I can only hope that either ATI and nVidia adopt a similar triple head technology in the not too distant future...or Matrox releases a competive performance solution of the parhelia.

 

[Typedef Enum]

I had the same questions, even after placing my Parhelia order...

Here's the breakdown:

1. Dual-Head: Under dual-head, you can run 2 TFT's w/ DVI. The resolution is not limited for each display.

2. Triple-Head: Under triple-head, you can run 1 TFT w/ DVI. You have to use this special cable that Matrox provides that will essentially split the thing into 2 outputs. So, on the one end, is a DVI connector...on the other are 2 separate cable, both of which are D-Sub connectors. Under this scenario, you can only go up to 1280x1024 (including desktop).

This depends on your setup, of course...But, I've got 2 TFT's that go up to 1600x1200...I would much rather have 2 displays running @ 1600x1200 (native) then I would in having 3 displays running @ 12x10.

So, on the desktop side of things, I setup my display for dual-head...For gaming, I then change it to triple-head.

 

[T2k]

2. Triple-Head: (...), you can only go up to 1280x1024 (including desktop).

Just for the records: actually it's 3840x1024, of course.

(This is my biggest complain: I love the triple-sized desktop but I prefer 1600x1200...)

 

[Typedef Enum]

Yes...That was for _each_ monitor....1280x1024 x 3 for the entire desktop.

 

[noko]

I still like the 65" HDTV game rig idea better. Except no one here has seemed to tried it yet, including me. How about Xbox owners and HDTVs?

 

[Ozymandis]

How about Xbox owners and HDTVs?

What about it do you want to know?

 

[WaltC]

One thing that's pretty clear, as it relates to Surround Gaming, is the fact that it's really not totally imperative that you have massively awesome displays for the peripheral (IE the 2 side displays).

In my current setup, I've got my old 19" Hitachi CRT on the left hand side, while the 2nd Dell 2000FP is on the right. The Dell is clearly a superior display in every single aspect over the CRT...But when you're playing a game, you will obviously not concentrate on what you see out of the side displays...It's really weird, but I'm sure you can understand what I'm talking about. Your eyes will be focused on the center, but you will definitely be aware of the images coming out of the side displays.

A few things about surround gaming and the present way it's being publicized kind of rub me the wrong way.

First of all there are the screen shots which purport to represent what an actual game surround screen looks like. None of them do. Where are the monitor bezels you will inevitably see that break up the image? You definitely do not see one long, smooth image as the screen shots suggest--you actually see an image divided into three separate pieces by the highly visible--and distracting--monitor bezels.

Now, if all of your monitors are identical and have small bezels, it won't be *as* distracting as it would be if someone attempted to use three different monitors with three different screen sizes and bezel colors and thickness and so on. That would likely be so distracting as to eliminate any so-called advantage of the concept. Also, I read that each screen has a certain number of pixels overlap with the adjacent screen--doubtless to prevent any information from being lost--but I would think this would further serve to heighten one's awareness that he's looking at three separate images instead of a single unbroken image.

Simply put--no screen shot I've seen to date accurately portrays the concept--all of them exaggerate it into something it's not. I have seen photographs of people sitting behind tri-monitor setups in which you can see the monitors and bezels and how the image is broken up--these are accurate renditions--but the long screen shots surely are not.

As far as distractions go, I would think that for the time being the "stretched" versions of surround gaming would be most numerous since they don't require any special programming. When a game is stretched in this fashion it creates a "fish-eye" lens distortion effect in the side monitors. Personally I would find this very distracting. Games written to support the surround concept natively, however, won't show this distortion effect as they will display normally in all three screens--except for the image breakup due to the monitor bezels and the screen overlap, of course. But I expect them to be few and far between.

One last thing that strikes me that would be very distracting here--and that's *having* peripheral vision when playing a 3D game, when your center of action is constrained to the center monitor. First, I can easily imagine a situation where something happens in one of the side monitors and you turn your head to see it and get fragged in the middle monitor while you're distracted by what's happening on the side. Second, if you turn to a side monitor and see some action taking place you'd like to pursue, you can't just grab a mouse and keyboard relative to the side monitor you're looking at and go immediately from there, you have to turn back to the center monitor and move from there *around* to the side to investigate what you saw on the side monitor. I would think during this process you could get fragged to death...

I know that with some imagination you can overlook the monitor bezels, but no amount of imagination can spare you from a trisected image. No amount of imagination can spare you from that wide-angle lens look in the side monitors for stretched games. And no amount of imagination can prevent you from missing something in the center monitor while distracted and looking directly at the side monitors--if you're going to train yourself to mostly ignore the side monitors it seems to me there's little use to have them at all.

Personally, like watching television, or a movie, I'd prefer to see all of the action in front of me. I would not be adverse to surround gaming provided I could do it on a single monitor with the kind of images the surround gaming screenshots indicate--*that* I wouldn't mind at all.... But I can't honestly say it would be worth the expense that such a wrap-around monitor would undoubtedly entail.

I think it's an intriguing concept and definitely has promise, but in its present state of development it just seems more awkward and distracting than anything else.

 

[DemoCoder]

IMHO, the most useful thing for multiple monitors is development.

Code editor on one monitor, docs, tools, and stuff on the other.

 

[muted]

WaltC


you should check www.matrox.com

http://www.matrox.com/mga/3d_gaming/enhanced_games/media/bandits/bandits1.jpg

 

[Typedef Enum]

WaltC,

You're going to have to take my word on this...Believe me, I thought some of the exact same things that you brought up.

In fact, I was very concerned that the FP2000 bezels would be too large, and it would make the thing totally suck.

When you actually sit there and play a game in S.G., you just don't notice it...It's really that simple.

Think about it...I've got a 19" CRT sitting on my left (that's also curved, BTW) and a 20+" TFT on the right (flat). You would think, somehow, that would factor in big-time when playing an actual game...

You know what? It doesn't! You just have to try it and see for yourself...I don't know. Maybe some notice it...I can only tell you that I have yet to see one person, be it an avg. Joe, a hardware reviewer (wouldn't trust their words with a 10-foot pole), etc., claim this to be a problem.

Let me also say this...Take a game like Quake3. A lot of people sit there and say how crappy the game is. OK...But let me tell you something. Playing Quake3 in Surround Gaming just totally breathes new life into this title like you wouldn't believe. I mean, it _really_ is a hell of a lot more fun because you really become a part of the game.

I have slowly but surely gone down the list and played a good number of titles sporting this feature...

 

[KimB]

IMHO, the most useful thing for multiple monitors is development.

Code editor on one monitor, docs, tools, and stuff on the other.

Most definitely! I know that when I'm programming, I can easily have 10+ different windows open...it becomes rather cumbersome to switch between them all. One of these days, when I get the money, I'll definitely go for a second display for this reason.

 

[BRiT]

At home I had a multi-monitor display setup (love that ATI-8500), and even then I was still using a 3x3 virtual-desktop-manager. One desktop is cvs repository browser, one is a couple gnu emacs windows and bash shells, one is client side running, one is server side running, one is for email, one is for file browsing, one is for product javadocs, one is for unit-test running, one is for Rational Rose. Thrown into the mix are a few web-surfing windows (gotta love Opera in multi-window + multi-page mode). As a developer, one can never have enough screen real-estate.

I wish the Matrox card was cheaper. Its a real bugger that with the 3 videos enabled you're maxed out at 1280x1024 per desktop. Was there any particular reason Matrox choose this limitation -- due to ramdac speed limitations?

--|BRiT|

 

[T2k]

Waltc,

you'll forget all the bezels after the very first minute of surround gaming (w/ 3 monitors), believe me...

 

[Nagorak]

Surround gaming actually does sound awesome to me... It's one feature I don't have to be convinced about. It's just too bad the price and performance of the Parhelia more or less put it out of reach (mostly price...I can't justify having 3 monitors for anything else but gaming...that just doesn't cut it ).

Oh well..

What really would be awesome, though, would be to have an LCD that's as long as 3 panels put together, and which curves 180. Of course placing the display might be a bit difficult (so it's actually oriented correctly around your head), but can you imagine how awesome that would be???

 

[noko]

Ozymandis

What about it do you want to know?

How big first is your HDTV set?

Which console?

What resolution do you play in?

Does it enhance your game play? If so how? How much better then a typical computer monitor?

Is the image quality good as in high texture detail vice the blurry type TV type quality? Or in between?

Is the refresh rate sufficient and not distracting?

Sorry for the number of questions but I am curious at the moment if a modern television/movie design can deliver computer generated graphics sufficiently.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Nagorak]

Does it enhance your game play? If so how? How much better then a typical computer monitor?

Just have to point out...if you sit right in front of your monitor, but sit back 6 feet from your TV, the size of the images you see is exactly the same. The only thing is if you're near sighted you'll have to wear glasses to see the TV (and not the monitor), and if you're far sighted the situation will be reversed. Otherwise I don't see how it could really enhance your gaming much at all.

Just my two cents though.

 

[Ozymandis]

Ozymandis

What about it do you want to know?

How big first is your HDTV set?

Which console?

What resolution do you play in?

Does it enhance your game play? If so how? How much better then a typical computer monitor?

Is the image quality good as in high texture detail vice the blurry type TV type quality? Or in between?

Is the refresh rate sufficient and not distracting?

Sorry for the number of questions but I am curious at the moment if a modern television/movie design can deliver computer generated graphics sufficiently.

Thanks in advance.

Well, my personal HDTV set is on order, and I'll be picking it up Tuesday or Wednsday of this week It's a 36 inch Zenith. But I play on a 54 inch projection HDTV sometimes in the meantime. Only Xbox on that particular set.

I play in 480p, because that's the only resolution that any of the current Xbox titles support (to my knowledge). Yes, it looks significantly better than it does when running in interlaced mode. As for enhancing the gameplay, hmmm, personally I believe that it does but others would possibly disagree. The refresh rate is fine BTW, I've never had a problem with it at all.

It's not all peaches-and-cream though. First of all, 480p is only 640x480. Since no shipping Xbox games use FSAA (to my knowledge) and the screen is so large, pixelation can be pretty bad depending on the game. Some games seem to run a very low internal resolution (Halo is particularly bad) but others look just fine.

I also own a Ps2 and Gamecube, but these I've only played on 1) my 27 inch Sony WEGA and 2) my Sony monitor through a 480p->VGA transcoder, so I can't testify yet as to the HDTV capabilities of either of these.

Anyways, as for the visual quality and how it compares to what you get on PC with a decent monitor, I think consoles have the edge overall. PC games run in a higher resolution, and VGA monitors seem to have better color clarity (and certainly lower dot pitch) than most HDTVs. On the other hand, the actual scenes rendered on modern consoles are superior to what is being done in PC gaming at the moment. Better poly counts, better use of effects, more consistent art (bigger budgets), etc. You get used to the pixelation eventually

Personally I'd much rather be playing on my HDTV than on my monitor any day. Mostly because I can sit on the couch

 

[KimB]

Anyways, as for the visual quality and how it compares to what you get on PC with a decent monitor, I think consoles have the edge overall. PC games run in a higher resolution, and VGA monitors seem to have better color clarity (and certainly lower dot pitch) than most HDTVs. On the other hand, the actual scenes rendered on modern consoles are superior to what is being done in PC gaming at the moment. Better poly counts, better use of effects, more consistent art (bigger budgets), etc. You get used to the pixelation eventually

I just have one question in regards to this, Ozymandis. Does this analysis include the UT2k3 demo? Man, that thing looks great!

 

[T2k]

What really would be awesome, though, would be to have an LCD that's as long as 3 panels put together, and which curves 180. Of course placing the display might be a bit difficult (so it's actually oriented correctly around your head), but can you imagine how awesome that would be???

For what? 'cause LCD is the worst display for playing games - slow like hell.
CRTs, only CRTs...