Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays PC Games (Games) Games

A Fresh Look At Multi-Screen PC Gaming 146

Posted by Soulskill
from the so-many-pixels-so-little-time dept.
crookedvulture writes "It has been quite a while since Slashdot last covered multi-monitor gaming. A lot has changed in the interim. Monitors prices continue to fall, and improved AMD Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround implementations make creating multi-display arrays incredibly easy. Graphics cards have gotten faster, allowing high-end models to handle the latest games at the ultra-high resolutions that multi-screen setups enable. Developers are doing a better job of supporting those resolutions, too, although HUD placement and single-screen cinematics are still problematic in some titles. Even in the games that do have niggling flaws, the wider perspective of a triple-screen config can offer a more engaging and immersive experience. As stereoscopic 3D implementations fail to catch on, multi-screen setups look like the best upgrade for PC gamers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Fresh Look At Multi-Screen PC Gaming

Comments Filter:
  • by icebike (68054) * on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @09:05PM (#40609985)

    There were versions of some of the popular First Person Shooters back in the day that would handle multi screens.
    They were great, for about 15 minutes, then vertigo set in, and even walking up the stairs out of the basement became a challenge.

    I suspect it was something to do with Visual Simulation of Motion with no motor or balance system feedback that did me in, but it could have
    been the pizza and jolt cola.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by noh8rz5 (2674523)
      my rig has 360 degree horizontal / 180 degree vertical, no bezels, retina display. it's called LIFE. high fps!
    • by Riceballsan (816702) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @09:42PM (#40610229)
      I would imagine to properly implement multi-screen, the best method would not be to treat it as 1 big ass monitor with a divider in the middle, but instead 2 screens with different designated uses. Look at the DS, even among games that didn't need touch screen (IE the hinderance of a finger blocking the view). The bottom screen was rarely a continuation for the top screen. I could see the same approach for more advanced PC games. FPS: Primary monitor shows the field of vision, Secondary monitor shows, multi-level more detailed radar, coms information, HP, weapons etc... in some co-op games if it fits the storyline's abilities, possibly field of vision for team mate etc... RPG: Move all of the party information, skill bars etc... off the primary screen. make them more detailed and easier to see the hotkeys or whatever has been associated etc... Basically instead of using the monitor to make one huge split function screen, take everything that somewhat clutters the field of vision, but is also critical, and move it to the second monitor.
      • SupCom had an ok implementation for a second monitor. Instead of normal RTS games with a tiny mini-map, your second monitor essentially functioned as a full-screen mini-map. That you could zoom in on. And give orders on. You couldn't do everything on the second monitor that you could on the main, but it was a huge leap forward from traditional RTS mini-maps.

      • by raehl (609729)

        I just got back from a con where they had the old Battletech pods set up. For those not familiar, it's basically a glorified version of Mechwarrior, played in an immersive pod/cockpit with 5 screens. There's the main "world view" screen which is actually reflected up onto a "lense" type glass that creates a wide perspective view, a full-color radar/control screen below that, and three green monochrome status screens up top.

        Only the main screen displays the world, the rest display status/controls. While th

        • by Khashishi (775369)

          Just because it's unfair doesn't make it a cheat. Is 7.1 stereo also a cheat then? What about mice with 2000 DPI? Direct T3 connection to the server? Low latency keyboard drivers? There are all sorts of advantages that can be had.

      • This 'Maximum PC' magazine article from July 2011 recommends 3 x 30" pivoted LCD screens as the ideal multi-monitor display setup

        http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/multiscreen_madness_we_test_four_incredible_display_setups [maximumpc.com]

      • by Fr33z0r (621949)

        The trick is to use 3 screens, 2 is not enough. With 3 it's fine, everything (incl HUD) lives in the center screen, screens to the left and right are just your periphery.

        Two monitors doesn't work for 1st/3rd person gaming because the bezel is In The Way. Three monitors provides a VASTLY superior gaming experience to 1 screen, but the left and right screens are always in your peripheral vision, they're great for having an idea of what's going on around you, but there's no point putting any HUD detail on them

        • by Raenex (947668)

          Two monitors doesn't work for 1st/3rd person gaming because the bezel is In The Way.

          That's the same reason why I never went with two monitors for any purpose. These days I'm happy with widescreen for doing stuff with multiple application windows or gaming, plus it saves a lot of desktop space.

          • I do a lot of development on web based applications, where 2 screens works very well.. one screen for my IDE, occassional switches over to email... the other is to display multiple browsers/windows for checking on interfaces, etc...
          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            Two monitors doesn't work for 1st/3rd person gaming because the bezel is In The Way.

            That's the same reason why I never went with two monitors for any purpose. These days I'm happy with widescreen for doing stuff with multiple application windows or gaming, plus it saves a lot of desktop space.

            That's true if you use multi=monitors the Wrong Way. Instead ofhaving two screens being equal and used interchangably, you need one to be a "primary" and the other a secondary. The primary one is where all your work ta

        • by Ash Vince (602485) *

          The trick is to use 3 screens, 2 is not enough. With 3 it's fine, everything (incl HUD) lives in the center screen, screens to the left and right are just your periphery.

          Two monitors doesn't work for 1st/3rd person gaming because the bezel is In The Way. Three monitors provides a VASTLY superior gaming experience to 1 screen, but the left and right screens are always in your peripheral vision, they're great for having an idea of what's going on around you, but there's no point putting any HUD detail on them because you can't concentrate on their content to any great degree without taking your eye off the action.

          The problem with most setups you describe is they not always acceptable in multiplayer games. Having full 180 degree vision is often considered a hack since it gives you a massive advantage over most other players. The developers therefore simply lock the field of view to forward only then use the extra monitors for adding detail rather than increasing field of view.

          I remember one of my clan mates had a 3 monitor setup but he had to keep it locked to just displaying forward view over the 3 monitors so he ac

    • I remember playing Doom on 3 monitors (using 3 computers, of course). Also multi-player, always waiting for the 386 to finish loading the level.

      • I thought of the exact same thing. I seem to remember launching the app with a command line switch like /left or /right on separate machines.

        Is this one of the downfalls of DRM, where software companies don't want you loading the game on multiple machines?
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @10:40PM (#40610549) Homepage Journal

      There were versions of some of the popular First Person Shooters back in the day that would handle multi screens.
      They were great, for about 15 minutes, then vertigo set in, and even walking up the stairs out of the basement became a challenge.

      That's why I had my gaming rig set up on the first floor. Problem solved.

      It was damp down in the basement, anyway, and my mom's knees were beginning to give out, so I started having go get my own snacks. Who needs that kind of aggravation when you're capturing the flag?

      On the down side, now I have less time to pull my pants up when I'm playing Bayonetta. Right?

      • by gmhowell (26755)

        my mom's knees were beginning to give out, so I started having go get my own snacks.

        I bought your mom a pair of pads. Not my fault her knees gave out.

    • by gmhowell (26755)

      The best solution for that is to stay in the basement.

      Mom! More hot pockets!

  • Space problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @09:12PM (#40610043)
    I really don't see multi-screen gaming really catching on because of the simple fact that a lot of people don't have a whole heck of a lot of space, especially in the "core" gamer demographic who tend to either be living with their parents or living in a cramped apartment. Desktops aren't exactly space savers and decent sized monitors aren't easy to fit 3 or more on a normal sized desk.
    • games I'm playing in 3 monitors now Max Payne 3 Saints Row 3 Deus Ex HR Bulletstorm Assassin's Creed series even free MMO's support multi monitor Lord of the Rings Online Dungeons and Dragons Online
    • by Anonymous Coward

      The real reason it won't catch on in the near future is that you have to make such massive compromises. Even if you're willing to spend more than $6,400 for video cards and monitors to go quad SLI, it wont' be enough power to pump out the pixels for three 2560x1600 monitors at a minimum of 60fps with all the eye candy turned on across the board, today. Much less on tomorrow's games. So, you have to compromise. How about we do 16:9, instead of 16:10? Oh, and how about three 1920x1080 monitors? (By the way, t

      • by Beardydog (716221)
        Also, it just looks like shit.

        Apologies to everyone, by the way, for crapping all over the commenatry for this article. I swore several months ago to male it my life's mission to badmiuth multi-monitor gaming aggressively until NVidia or ATI, or possibly game companies (I'm not quite sure who is in the best position...) fix its horrific shortcomings.

        I've been waiting for the issue to come up again, but I was late to the party, and I'm now working at double-capacity spewing vitriol for grotesquely distorte
    • I have a room that comfortably fits a twin bed, a work desk, shelving and bookshelves, and a two-desk setup with 4 monitors; 2 30" 2560x1200 and 2 20" 1600x1200 (rotated to perspective view), 30-20-30-20 setup, with the first 30 90 degrees left of chair and the other 3 in an arc so monitor plane at center is perpendicular to perspective.

      Tough to fit a girlfriend in there, but plenty of monitor space.

      • by Beardydog (716221)
        If you are playing 3D FPSs or RPGs, all monitors should be aligned in a single plane wth its center directly in front of you. Then either FOV should be adjusted until it matches the angle the monitors actually occupy, or you should adjust your distance to the center-pint until the monitors occupy an angle equal to your FOV.

        Being at the center of an arc of monitors is mathematically incorrect, and makes distortion worse than it has to be.
        • Unless each monitor was rendered independently by the engine from the same origin but a different camera angle, linked to the angle of the monitor. That way you could stick one on the ceiling if you wanted

        • by Hatta (162192)

          If you are playing 3D FPSs or RPGs, all monitors should be aligned in a single plane wth its center directly in front of you.

          Only if the 3d is implemented by idiots. I should be able to place a monitor at any position and any angle and get a view of how the virtual works looks from there. If I want a monitor behind me so I can turn my head and see what's behind me in the virtual world, that should work as expected. Anything else is pointless garbage.

    • by wzzzzrd (886091)
      Use your imagination. It doesn't has to be the "two 24'' monitors side by side on your desk" model. It may be a small old LCD sitting somewhere on the wall or desk within eyesight that displays combat logs or chat windows. It may be some cheap android tablet at your side displaying touchable stuff that, on a single monitor setup, would ruin rp experience (minimaps, actionbars, dialog frames).

      I've got lots of working old monitors and I'd like to see SOME programm, not just games, take advance of multiple
  • Useful (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @09:14PM (#40610051) Homepage Journal

    Back in the day old NuBus video cards and 15" displays were easy to come by so I hooked up a Mac IIvx with three displays and used it for A10 Attack [wikipedia.org]. Left screen was left window, front screen was front window, right screen was right window.

    It really improved gameplay for that sort of simulation, because if you were in a cockpit, that's something like you'd have available to you. I looked a few years ago into setting up something like this with X-Plane but it needed a networked set of computers, which seemed like overkill. Maybe that's improved.

    I'd imagine an FPS would be better off with goggles of some sort, though, if the resolution could be sorted out. Use the right tech for the right kind of simulation.

    • I recently downloaded MS Flight with the hopes of doing a cockpit view like that with my five-monitor setup. Sadly, it doesn't seem to give the option to use more than one monitor (unless I just haven't found it yet?)

      I'd love to have Freespace 2 or X-Wing vs TIE Fighter using all of the monitors too...

  • Flight sim allowed you to run views on other machines. It gave you a panoramic, out the window(s) display and a separate instrument panel display . They decided to kill it in FS2K or earlier and screwed the hardcore.
  • Still a gimmick (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bieeanda (961632) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @09:53PM (#40610297)
    I've been running multiple monitors since Windows 98's beyond half-assed support for the concept, and have three on my desk right now. Really, the only titles that benefit from these arrangements are extremely hard-core flight simulators (as noted elsewhere in the discussion) and the very occasional macro-scale real-time strategy game where there's a benefit to shoving all of your production and resource manipulation readouts to a separate screen.

    For just about anything else, it's a silly little frippery-- sure, it might be cute to have a clan battle's K/D ratios on a separate screen, or an automap and inventory, but those are hardly quality of life breakthroughs. Like stereoscopic glasses and VR goggles, it's a solution in search of a problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TXG1112 (456055)

      Nonsense! There are quite a few games where I would love to have a separate screen. With FPS's you could put the map, more detailed injury status, inventory and all sorts of things that might make for new and interesting game play. RPG's would derive a huge benefit as well in that you wouldn't need to waste game real estate on status, configuration or other information.

      Your issue is that you are imagining today's game elements moved onto a second screen. I agree that this would merely be a marginal improvem

      • by arth1 (260657)

        X2 had a pretty good dual monitor setup, where you could choose what went on the second monitor. It also didn't have to have the same resolution as the primary one. Having multiple status windows open made for a much better game.
        With X3 they screwed it all up. You now had to have the same resolution on both monitors, and (worse), the primary monitor had to be the one on the left.

        FS2004 worked too, sort of. But you had to pause, and then drag the windows over to where you wanted them, and then resize the

    • RTFA - one thing that I like the sound of is playing rally games, where you're sliding sideways .. with this you get to look out the side window to see your direction of travel much more natural than staring at the trees going past the front

    • by zevans (101778)

      I've been running multiple monitors since Windows 98's beyond half-assed support for the concept

      Anyone else noticed that Windows has got better at it in every release since, whereas KDE has got worse? I love progress.

  • If Guild Wars 2 really delivers what the hype has been about recently, I may consider a 3x setup. If I can't customize my UI, have addons and such then I'll stay on one monitor. Look at League of Legends, no addon ability or UI modifications is the only reason (user experience, not game engine) multi-monitor LoL isn't possible. I would rather a 27" with 20" on either side turned vertical. Three 24" widescreens are too much on the eyes in either direction.
    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      Multi monitor LoL isn't possible because multi-monitor LoL would be cheating. MOBA games must limit the total viewable zone for all players to exactly the same size, and for that reason, they also have a very limited maximum zoom-out.

      Because getting a bigger tactical overview would give player an immense advantage in LoL. So if you ever did manage to get LoL to play on multiple monitors with wider view, you'd be banned in a very short order for obvious cheating.

  • by devforhire (2658537) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @10:04PM (#40610359)
    I've been running a 3 monitor display (3 x 22" 1920x1080) for several years playing WOW, LOTRO, EVE, and BF3. The games look awesome covering all 3 screens, but it doesn't improve gameplay enough to make it worth my time. I typically play with the games windowed and maximized to a single screen. This lets me multi-box easily or play a game while watching a movie on another monitor.
  • Peripheral Vision (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wisebabo (638845) on Tuesday July 10, 2012 @10:24PM (#40610475) Journal

    One benefit of multi-screen games is that they can provide, when angled inward, is peripheral vision.

    Even an infinitely wide flat display can only provide 180 degrees of view. However, depending on the widths, position of the viewer and amount the panels are angled, a multi-screen system can do much better.

    Anyway, are there any tweaks in the softawe to account for this? If you DO angle the displays, then you no longer have a flat "window" into the virtual 3D world. So the software should account for this (and ideally also the size of the bevels) and ask you the angles that you've set up your monitors. (I'm not a gamer so I don't know, maybe this is commonplace).

    A really sophisticated setup would allow you to place arbitrarily sized monitors at arbitrary locations and angles, like portals onto an imaginary world. Would be best for flight/ship/tank simulators. Actually, if you're going to go this far, maybe it's just easier to use a virtual reality headset.

    • by omglolbah (731566)

      I find that the peripheral vision is awesome in most FPS games. I have none of the issues people seem to state as 'main problems'.

      * Vertigo?.. um no.
      * Driver support (amd eyefinity) works ok for me. Some games have a shitty implementation assuming the aspect ratio can be found from just the width (which in my setup is 5760 pixels...). Most work fine though.

      But really, for gaming it is nice. For everything else it is flipping awesome.

      Reference docs on right monitor, visual studio or putty on the center, and

      • by Talderas (1212466)

        Thanks for demonstrating the exact problem with multi-monitor displays. The UI is crippled. Your focus will mostly be on the the center display. The minimap (which is useful) is not tucked far out of your focus in the upper right. Chat displays and party health indicators are tucked far off to the left.

        How fucking useless for a bit of eye candy.

        • by omglolbah (731566)

          You also see mobs far before anyone else.
          Unless you're playing a healer in D3 (trololo?) you really dont need the party health bars all that much...

          It is not nearly perfect, but it works ok. As far as I have seen no modern blizzard game 'breaks' when run in eyefinity. That was the point of the screenshots.

          If you look at the WoW screen-shot you cannot really say the same can you?

          It is a trade-off in many games, diablo for sure. In WoW and SWTOR however there is no issue at all with multimonitor displays, on

          • by Talderas (1212466)

            You're missing the point. Each of these UI elements conveys useful information. You don't need to be a healer in D3 to make use of the health bars, in fact the best usage of them is to tell whether a party member is dead or alive without having to scan the bloody screen looking for their marker. The human eye only has a limited range that it can focus in on. When you use three displays the outer two are forces into peripheral vision because the focus must almost always be on the center display. If you have

            • by omglolbah (731566)

              You're missing the point.

              No, I'm disagreeing with your point.

              You don't need to be a healer in D3 to make use of the health bars, in fact the best usage of them is to tell whether a party member is dead or alive without having to scan the bloody screen looking for their marker.

              I rarely if ever play Diablo without friends on skype so this is not an issue to me.

              Information and objects clustered closer to the center of the screen to minimize eye and mouse movement.

              The "need to be available all the time, with no delay" I agree. It is a benefit to have it all on the center screen. There is however a pile of information that you need to glance at once in a while. An aggro meter is a good example as most DPS do not really need to stare at it, so having it off at the side so you can just have a quick glance every once in a while works so it does not clut

    • by Beardydog (716221)
      This is why multi-monitor gaming is garbage. None of thes wonderful/necessary ideas are supported (except bevel compensation).

      Apart from incredibly rare, fancy flight simulators, there are no games that will render a separate angle for each screen. This makes it mathematically impossible for any number of monitors to produce a 180 degree view, let alone the wrap-around or CAVE-type views they could be capable of.

      The only proper arrangement for a three monitor setup is for all three to be lined up perfec
      • iracing [iracing.com] does multiple distinct render windows into the world along with bevel compensation.

        They probably have the best support out there for this kind of thing.

        See this badass setup [youtube.com]

        Currently limited to 3, though.

      • by omglolbah (731566)

        Buuut, it works ok in practice.

        It was a bit odd at first, but I rapidly got used to the FOV distortion.. Maybe it is because my brain has had to deal with a rather severe distortion of my peripheral vision due to strong glasses for years (-10.5, -10.75).

        Then again... Playing Quake with 'fov 120' was quite common on one screen, which was odd but you got used to it fast and could see more.

    • by CRC'99 (96526)

      I do exactly this to get my fix in Team Fortress 2. 3 x 24" screens running 1920x1080. The outer screens are angled ~30 degrees in and using the bevel removal tool for the ATI card seems to get the perspective thing sorted out.

      I have hotkeys in the ATI Control Panel that allow me to switch configs between the three screens being seen as a single display (giving me 5968x1080 with bevel correction) and 3 x seperate 1920x1080 for normal use.

      Why 3 screens? Well, if you have 2 - look at the bevels between the tw

      • by Beardydog (716221)
        Angling your displays is mathematically incorrect. Distortion will only be resolved placing them in a single plane an making sure your FOV matches the arc the monitors take up.
        • by omglolbah (731566)

          That there is no decent software solution doesnt matter if you can compensate in your brain though. I have no problem seeing the peripheral view just fine.

          The thing to remember is that for almost ALL use in FPS games the peripheral vision is not for seeing details, it is for noticing when an uber-charged demo-man comes around the corner to rape you with a spiked sticky-bomb :p
          When you see something you can turn to see WHAT it is (in game, not your head). The distortion doesnt matter much in that case.

    • by argStyopa (232550)

      "Anyway, are there any tweaks in the softawe to account for this? If you DO angle the displays, then you no longer have a flat "window" into the virtual 3D world. "

      Basically, yes. The side-monitors aren't just the left and right 'edges' of the main view.

      I know from early Quake2 implementations, that while your front view might be 70deg in front of you, the left/right monitors could be set to be the view from the players view, looking to the side X degrees, with their own FOV adjustment. So the right monit

  • by Osgeld (1900440)

    I can see it for flight sims or racing sims, but for normal gaming why? so I can see my characters ass split between 2 screens with an inch of bezel in their crack?

    • by omglolbah (731566)

      Multimonitor gaming is almost always 3 displays. That is why it has taken so long to catch on, up until the past few years 3 displays was not very commonly supported on decent gaming adapters.

    • by arth1 (260657)

      I can see it for flight sims or racing sims, but for normal gaming why? so I can see my characters ass split between 2 screens with an inch of bezel in their crack?

      No, so you can have status displays, inventories, maps, and other things that obscure your display on the second screen. That increases the immersion.

      You don't even need 3D acceleration on the second screen.

  • Is it better to have a 30" hd tv (1080p) for about $400 or three 20" computer monitors about $120x3=$360. *prices subject to change. but they are pretty close.
  • "As stereoscopic 3D implementations fail to catch on" the post is pretty much trolling on the basis that stereoscopic gaming is failing. If anything, it's getting more support lately. Nvidia not only supports 3D monitors, but now also supports playing games in 3D via 3D HDTVs over HDMI ( www.nvidia.com/object/3dtv-play-overview.html ). ATI finally offers good stereoscopic support via HD3D ( www.amd.com/hd3D ). And 3rd parties like TriDef offer nice 3D support for a variety of video cards. I personally
    • ATI has pure shit for 3D support and so does Nvidia. With Nvidia, its like 40 bucks for a downloadable driver fix that you can install 3 times for your 40 bucks. ATIs native solution depends on developer implementation and so far the only game that *should* work natively with my new HD 7870 card (Deus Ex), doesn't even give me the option to turn stereoscopic ON.

      With 40+ inch passive TV screens now in the 500 dollar range, they'd be wise to start pulling their heads out of their collective asses and star
  • by Loopy (41728)

    RTS games almost universally get the shaft in these stories. Main combat screen on one monitor, status/minimap on the other. Supreme Commander is a great example of well-done multimonitor RTS games. Alas, RTS tends to suck when you only have like 5 buttons and a poor pointing interface on your controller. ;)

  • by humanrev (2606607) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @12:33AM (#40611203)

    Why would invest in such a setup when apparently PCs are dead, tablets are the future and so all this tech will be worthless in... (check's current technologist predictions)... about three months?

    Now go away while I transfer all my personal data to the cloud. I hear we won't have a need for hard drives anymore soon either.

  • by dinther (738910) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @12:57AM (#40611333) Homepage

    Just about everyone that uses a multi screen setup uses 3 screens in order to avoid the bevel in the middle. Usually the left and right screens are angled inward as to for a viewing arc. That is actually not a bad idea. Especially if the angles are such that the optical axis of each screens intersect at the user viewing position.

    BUT...

    Eyefinity or Nvidia surround don't work that way. They simply fool the rendering engine in believing the aspect of the rendering context is much wider. The result is that the virtual camera in the game uses a wider angle lens (Not quite but it will do to make my point). This causes the edges of the left and right screen to look rather distorted. Adding more screens width wise is really not worthwhile.

    What is needed is multiple 3D contexts like you can have in Microsoft Flight simulator where each camera looks at a slightly different heading. But, why bother to solve that at the game engine level. NVidia and ATI pay attention this tip is free!

    It should be possible to build true multiscreen logic into graphics drivers. If NVidia can do stereo they ought to be able to render outputs at different angles. Not only that, each output should not even assume that the optical center is in the middle of the screen either. Enter head tracking logic.

    I did lots of experiments with multiscreen and what it would take to have the ultimate multiscreen experience. I even wrote some demo software to prove the point in these old videos show that I made four years ago.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdtPz2V_vY [youtube.com]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku76aHq3pps [youtube.com]

    (Sorry about the cheesy sound track)

    And still we are stuck with dumb distorted multi monitor widescreens!

    • by Beardydog (716221)
      I love you. Can we start a club?

      My own personal experimentation was with iz3d's 3D drivers. They allow you to adjust parallax and convegence to nonsensical levels, and I realized one day that if I ran it in "dual projector" mode and adjusted the convergence outward, I might be able to simulatemhaving two different viewports.

      Unfortunately, they don't produce the second view by changing the rendering angle... All they do is translate points parallel to the monitor plane depending on depth. It's was intere
    • by G-forze (1169271)
      Since ATI and NVidia don't seem to be listening, couldn't this be included in something like the open source Noveau drivers? I know the 3D is still seriously lacking, but hopefully, some day, they will be up to speed and then adding something like what you suggested should be relatively simple, right?
    • by TheLink (130905)

      Reminds me of this (which came out a bit earlier) :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw [youtube.com]

      I believe the multi-screen stuff was doable with the Doom game many years ago (3 computers + monitors- center, 90 degrees left, 90 degrees right - so if you set the screens accordingly there is not that much distortion).

      Progress is slow, and all that patent bullshit doesn't help.

  • by Krneki (1192201) on Wednesday July 11, 2012 @05:03AM (#40612385)
    In about 1 or 2 years the new generation of VR helmets will arrive. The current one are ok-ish, but not hardcore enough to get the attention from hard-core gamers on triple screens setup.

    Once we have 1080P@120Hz, 180 filed of view and some other details I can't be arsed to google right now, we will forget about screens.

  • Surprise someone has not mentioned MS Smartglass [techradar.com] since it designed to give a second screen to games.
    Granted it more show now than relality but it does point the way that multiple display can be used in games.

You had mail, but the super-user read it, and deleted it!

Working...