Slashdot Mirror

Linux support is sketchy for dual-view in my experience

No doubt. I had a Matrox Parhelia triple-head card with 3 LCD monitors. (Screenshot/Photo Screenshot/Photo) [MS Flight Simulator 2004 under WinXP Pro]

Linux support for the Matrox card was deplorable, so I sold it and bought an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. The ATI card's dual monitor capabilities were very quirky. Too much B.S. to explain. Plus the UT2K4-demo ran like crap under Linux (low framre rate) and looked like ass compared to Windows.

I was told NVidia was the best option for Linux. Their drivers were allegedly way better than ATI's. Sounded good to me.

So I got rid of the ATI card. (It burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.) Actually I didn't get rid of it, I just put it in my wife's computer. Let me tell you, Frozen Bubble and LBreakout really stress out that card. What a great value. (I'm kidding, in case you couldn't tell.)

So then I bought an NVidia 5700 Ultra GeForceFX for my machine. The dual-head video works (basically), but X has never been slower. I can't believe how DOG slow X is. I dual booted over to WinXP a couple of weeks ago - the first time I had seen Windows in many, many months. I was sickened at how increadibly fast it is. Almost enough to make me give up on my Linux fantasy.

Fortunately for me, I'm so blinded by my hatred for Microsoft that I'll continue to suffer under Linux. Things will get better some day. Right? [sigh...]

Linux support is sketchy for dual-view in my experience

No doubt. I had a Matrox Parhelia triple-head card with 3 LCD monitors. (Screenshot/Photo Screenshot/Photo) [MS Flight Simulator 2004 under WinXP Pro]

Linux support for the Matrox card was deplorable, so I sold it and bought an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro. The ATI card's dual monitor capabilities were very quirky. Too much B.S. to explain. Plus the UT2K4-demo ran like crap under Linux (low framre rate) and looked like ass compared to Windows.

I was told NVidia was the best option for Linux. Their drivers were allegedly way better than ATI's. Sounded good to me.

So I got rid of the ATI card. (It burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.) Actually I didn't get rid of it, I just put it in my wife's computer. Let me tell you, Frozen Bubble and LBreakout really stress out that card. What a great value. (I'm kidding, in case you couldn't tell.)

So then I bought an NVidia 5700 Ultra GeForceFX for my machine. The dual-head video works (basically), but X has never been slower. I can't believe how DOG slow X is. I dual booted over to WinXP a couple of weeks ago - the first time I had seen Windows in many, many months. I was sickened at how increadibly fast it is. Almost enough to make me give up on my Linux fantasy.

Fortunately for me, I'm so blinded by my hatred for Microsoft that I'll continue to suffer under Linux. Things will get better some day. Right? [sigh...]

Enjoy

I'm sure that having a second monitor to provide extra game info is probably way cool, especially with games like flight sims and driving sims. But how many people really have two monitors?

I bought 3 Hitachi 17" Flat Panel displays just for that purpose. I powered them with a Matrox Parhelia. (Screenshots here, here, and here.

For Flight Sim'ing, the experience is just OK (at best). And that's only if you turn down the settings quite a bit. The video card simply can't handle 3840x1024 resolutions with all the settings maxed out and still manage 60+ frames per second. (Though in flight siming, since the graphics don't change nearly as much as they do in a first person shooter, you only need 25-30 to get a smooth playback.)

I noticed that in first person shooters the extra monitors didn't actually add to the emersion like I thought it would. You still focus all of your attention on the middle monitor. The side monitors ARE good for camping/sniping though. You have a wider field of view so it's harder for someone to surprise you from the side. But when you are running around constantly, the side monitors can almost be more distracting than useful. But it makes for a great demo for friends. Everyone you show it to will want it.

The real problem with triple head gaming right now is lack of graphic processing power. Don't buy the Matrox card for this purpose. You definitely WILL NOT be happy with the results. I most certainly wasn't. And I bought it knowing that for first person shooters it was going to suck, but I wanted it mainly for Flight Simulators. But even in that case it just doesn't have enough power.

Maybe when PCI Express is available I'll be able to buy 3 NVidia/ATI based graphic cards that actually have the kind of power needed for this intense of a workout.

What Tom's Hardware is proposing in this article is a much more practicle use for a second (or third) monitor. Having the second monitor display map data, chat information, statistics, and so on. The second display wouldn't even have to be accelerated in that case. A spare PCI VGA card with 8MB or 16MB of RAM should be sufficient.

I'm sure that having a second monitor to provide extra game info is probably way cool, especially with games like flight sims and driving sims. But how many people really have two monitors?

I bought 3 Hitachi 17" Flat Panel displays just for that purpose. I powered them with a Matrox Parhelia. (Screenshots here, here, and here.

For Flight Sim'ing, the experience is just OK (at best). And that's only if you turn down the settings quite a bit. The video card simply can't handle 3840x1024 resolutions with all the settings maxed out and still manage 60+ frames per second. (Though in flight siming, since the graphics don't change nearly as much as they do in a first person shooter, you only need 25-30 to get a smooth playback.)

I noticed that in first person shooters the extra monitors didn't actually add to the emersion like I thought it would. You still focus all of your attention on the middle monitor. The side monitors ARE good for camping/sniping though. You have a wider field of view so it's harder for someone to surprise you from the side. But when you are running around constantly, the side monitors can almost be more distracting than useful. But it makes for a great demo for friends. Everyone you show it to will want it.

The real problem with triple head gaming right now is lack of graphic processing power. Don't buy the Matrox card for this purpose. You definitely WILL NOT be happy with the results. I most certainly wasn't. And I bought it knowing that for first person shooters it was going to suck, but I wanted it mainly for Flight Simulators. But even in that case it just doesn't have enough power.

Maybe when PCI Express is available I'll be able to buy 3 NVidia/ATI based graphic cards that actually have the kind of power needed for this intense of a workout.

What Tom's Hardware is proposing in this article is a much more practicle use for a second (or third) monitor. Having the second monitor display map data, chat information, statistics, and so on. The second display wouldn't even have to be accelerated in that case. A spare PCI VGA card with 8MB or 16MB of RAM should be sufficient.

I'm sure that having a second monitor to provide extra game info is probably way cool, especially with games like flight sims and driving sims. But how many people really have two monitors?

I bought 3 Hitachi 17" Flat Panel displays just for that purpose. I powered them with a Matrox Parhelia. (Screenshots here, here, and here.

For Flight Sim'ing, the experience is just OK (at best). And that's only if you turn down the settings quite a bit. The video card simply can't handle 3840x1024 resolutions with all the settings maxed out and still manage 60+ frames per second. (Though in flight siming, since the graphics don't change nearly as much as they do in a first person shooter, you only need 25-30 to get a smooth playback.)

I noticed that in first person shooters the extra monitors didn't actually add to the emersion like I thought it would. You still focus all of your attention on the middle monitor. The side monitors ARE good for camping/sniping though. You have a wider field of view so it's harder for someone to surprise you from the side. But when you are running around constantly, the side monitors can almost be more distracting than useful. But it makes for a great demo for friends. Everyone you show it to will want it.

The real problem with triple head gaming right now is lack of graphic processing power. Don't buy the Matrox card for this purpose. You definitely WILL NOT be happy with the results. I most certainly wasn't. And I bought it knowing that for first person shooters it was going to suck, but I wanted it mainly for Flight Simulators. But even in that case it just doesn't have enough power.

Maybe when PCI Express is available I'll be able to buy 3 NVidia/ATI based graphic cards that actually have the kind of power needed for this intense of a workout.

What Tom's Hardware is proposing in this article is a much more practicle use for a second (or third) monitor. Having the second monitor display map data, chat information, statistics, and so on. The second display wouldn't even have to be accelerated in that case. A spare PCI VGA card with 8MB or 16MB of RAM should be sufficient.

here

What about Matrox...

Don't even get me started! :) I just ordered an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to replace my Matrox Parhelia card. The linux drivers that are available for the Parhelia are lousy, not accelerated*, not officially supported (meaning if you can't make it work, tough luck), and only available for RedHat 9. (They might work with other distros but *I* (your milage may vary) couldn't get them to compile under Mandrake or Debian.)

* If you ask politely, they'll e-mail you a link to an accelerated driver package that - in my experience - doesn't work.

I'll miss the card with my Flight Simulator under Windows.

And I've never had an experience where increasing resolution or detail options in a game made it more enjoyable to me. I'm an oldschooler who's played enough nintendo that his eyes are shot, I cant tell 1600x1200 from 800x600.

I don't care to get into the heated debate that everyone else is, but that line realy jumped out at me. Being a Flight Sim fanatic, it's all about the resolution. Saying that the difference between 1600x1200 and 800x600 is night/day is a gross understatement. The world you fly in becomes nearly photo realistic when you hit a certain resolution. Whereas it's ugly and clunky looking at the lower resolutions.

I'm not big on the FPS genre, though I think they are interesting to look at, visually. I just don't care to play them really. But I have of course played them. And there again the resolution difference is night/day.

I'm curious what kind of video card you're using? You can get a very inexpensive ($100-$150) NVidia or ATI card that will take advantage of a lot of the visual features that your card might be missing? It's not just about eye candy. At least not with Flight Simulators. It completely changes the experience when you have rich detail. another example

And I've never had an experience where increasing resolution or detail options in a game made it more enjoyable to me. I'm an oldschooler who's played enough nintendo that his eyes are shot, I cant tell 1600x1200 from 800x600.

I don't care to get into the heated debate that everyone else is, but that line realy jumped out at me. Being a Flight Sim fanatic, it's all about the resolution. Saying that the difference between 1600x1200 and 800x600 is night/day is a gross understatement. The world you fly in becomes nearly photo realistic when you hit a certain resolution. Whereas it's ugly and clunky looking at the lower resolutions.

I'm not big on the FPS genre, though I think they are interesting to look at, visually. I just don't care to play them really. But I have of course played them. And there again the resolution difference is night/day.

I'm curious what kind of video card you're using? You can get a very inexpensive ($100-$150) NVidia or ATI card that will take advantage of a lot of the visual features that your card might be missing? It's not just about eye candy. At least not with Flight Simulators. It completely changes the experience when you have rich detail. another example