zahry

I still make mine too (with rotating nut like on TMW and cables inside) http://www.simpit.co.nz . I have sometimes problems with customs if they don't get response from recipient otherwise it's ok)

new experiment with curved shaft

Incredible :) awesome job

the latest update might have fixed it. I'll have a look tonight if it is just wishful thinking or not :)

you can also use the nvidia surround or ati eyefinity bezel compensation (very much the same as the matrox)

the 980Ti might struggle occasionally but lot depends on your FOV and tweaking the settings. You can compensate for the bezels within DCS really well by selecting the "3 screen" in settings and editing the config file for that particular view in "Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Config\MonitorSetup" "viewDx = -1.01;" (you might need to tweak the value)

yep, Edit: actually it's $2000Usd including 2x projectors) From the point of the thread (4K gaming) it is perfectly doable and pretty good fun. even r9 390x can handle dcs in 4K and multiple views (with some eye candy down of course) if you want to run 8K system you need radeon duo and 12K is a slideshow no matter what :D. I think nvidia will be able to do good 4K as soon as the new pascal API gets implemented (at the moment I haven't had much luck with it). On the other hand nvidia is more advanced with the nvidia 3D vision which is interesting as well.

So what you are saying is that single r9 290 (if what you stated would be true) can significantly outperform the brand new GTX 1080 with no sweat??? Come on, you can't be serious :D - because with solo card I always have the xfire tick off and if you are right it would be pretty embarrassing for nvidia and all the review sites. This is the card running 6 HD projectors in totals resolution of 5760 x 2160 (bit over FULL 4K) simultaneously rendering 3 views covering 270º by 100º with everything pretty much on max with over 60 - 90 FPS ... please tell me the story how it is just crossfire r290 (xfire was off and it doesn't work with P3D anyways) I can see how some of the stuff can confuse people if you actually never seen the card. Yes - it's based on r9 290 but it's the same difference as having 2 single core CPUs or 1 dual core CPU (it might be little bit easier to understand it if you look at it this way)

I thought you must have read it somewhere, I'm certain if you ever owned the card you would know it's just not true. I'm trying (with the real card - not just reading stuff) and what you are saying is just not adding up in any way with what you are saying

Sorry - I have the card here and what you are saying is wrong. where are you getting that nonsense from?

That's a myth somebody spread around to harm the cards reputation but it's complete unadulterated BS - 295x2 is NOT crossfire and there is no magic tick box you could disable to reduce the performance down to single r290 (I have had it for almost 2 years now). It's a single card

could be a driver issue then, have you tried some older ones?

the r9 295x2 is single card and it's not using crossfire. I've tried some xfire configurations with r290 and r390 and it was substantial boost. I'm not sure how the 490 would behave as I haven't tried it yet. the CF on ATI is via PCI link so it's lot more flexible and reliable

get R9 295x2 or Radeon Duo - I can run 6K with 3 views rendered simultaneously on 120 - 160fps - you'll need fast hdd, CPU and memory to feed it though - the cards are data hungry and bottleneck can lower the performance significantly. 4K is absolutely no sweat even with everything on max

nope, it's the GTX 1080 and nvidia driver problem. I have the same issue. I recently swapped from r9 295x2 (no issues) and the gtx1080 is noticeably slower and has micro stutters when you get close to the ground. (but it is still faster than the 980Ti - the 980Ti has no stutter).

just a question - how come you have such a low performance with the r9 295x2 - on my setup it beats the gtx 1080 by nearly 60%

PVC is not cheap but it looks cheap ... You can do some wonders with 2x2 and 4x4 wood and some paint. Looks better too. You can also try some local joinery for some MDF offcuts, car wreckers for car seats and similar parts and you can build yourself some really good stuff for few bucks

It's not a fear mongering - if you keep eye on the technical side and development you know the 3D goggles manufacturers know about the problem and made considerable effort to fix it. The new displays that are coming up have quite safe displays and you can find the info on wavelengths in technical specs and latest press releases and papers on gogles for 3D displays (it can give you a hint that I wasn't the only one).

mixed VR- if you are interested in learning more here is somewhere to start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_reality anyways - I came from the other end - used to own 3D goggles and used to believe that it will be the future and the only way to go - I've ended up with eye cataracts and eye problems (courtesy of short wavelength blue light and cheap plastic lenses - if you don't know about it here is from AOA [ame]http://www.aoa.org/Documents/CRG/Blue%20Light%20and%20Eye%20Damage.pdf[/ame] ) and that's why I moved away from it.

semantics is very important. if you say "somebody killed my wife and stolen her money" it definitely soundsharsh and different than you say "somebody killed my wife and adopted her money" - even though it's the same thing. The trouble with euphemisms is that those are often misleading and create lot of confusion - i.e. calling 3D goggles "VR" and i fully agree that I'm not saying things in a most popular way (analogy that springs to my mind: it's bit like telling kids santa is not real - it's true but it won't make you very popular - but that's life)

linguistics ;) I've noted you are using the politically correct term "adopted" instead of "hijacked and abused for marketing" which would be far more accurate and truthful. ;-)

I've posted more detailed answer in the other thread - it's a real 3D with 5 dof tracking (roll is not necessary)

Well, in general, from the reactions it sometimes it feels like I'm talking about somebody's girlfriend ... Quite large portion of users have act as if 3D goggles are VR (virtual reality) and not a 3D display (SBS 3D) with 6dof head-tracking. they will go on arguing even when you take the display apart, show them the bits and how it all works. I would say that's quite compelling evidence of hard conditioning. You can use even old CRT monitor to make something true believers would call "VR" just need a duct tape, Fresnel lens and TIR) DCS does support side by side 3D and warping for the 3D goggles - but its not subservient product or made solely for the devices. (although oculus is getting quite obtrusive with the "automatically detect oculus" marketing in game menus and so on) i.e. DCS it's made for everybody - you can still export displays, use panels and switches and export data. There is no knife on a neck to use anything and you can use it and enjoy it the way you want and fancy - which is absolutely fantastic and I hope it will stay that way. The "VR Titles" on the other hand have all that prohibited and actively preventing users unlocking it or take any advantage of features that meant to be only for 3D goggle users. They are made in the way they exclude everything but the 3D goggles. - THAT is the difference. By definition the VR (virtual reality) is the software so i call it mixed VR because I'm mixing the game in 3D (the virtual reality) with real 3D objects. Virtual reality is what it says - Virtual Reality - not a 3D goggles. Holocockpit could be bit better term but then people jump to conclusion that it might have something to do with microsoft hololens (which it doesn't of course) sorry to point it out again - 3D goggles are devices for displaying virtual reality (same as monitors, tvs and projectors).

simulators are not VR titles in any way - it wasn't developed for those displays, it would be here without it and 3D gogles had no effect on the development or the function - and there is no reason to hijack it. "VR" title is something specifically developed for 3D goggles and to compensate for the handicaps when you wearing them. 3D goggles "VR" support and VR (3d) title is substantial difference. * What you can do with 3D goggles on is the same what any person can do in the virtual cockpit on monitor (providing you don't knock the mouse of the table). wearing them just makes using peripherals limiting, difficult and quite an anoying exercise (and I'm talking from first hand experience because I was wearing 3D goggles for quite some time), I do understand why people like the idea and the novelty but it's nothing special - it's 150 years old design that hasn't changed in century and half and periodically goes through hypes like this one when people forget why they stopped using it the first time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope (still the same SBS stereoscope - technology improved some bits but the limitations are still the same) * The cut is just a slide of hands... I've spent well over decade and half doing r&d and experiments with 3D goggles and i'm just pointing out the most obvious nonsense and brainwash from facebook and valve - the crowd of managers and marketters from failed 3D TV companies just moved into new field - 3D goggles - and it really shows. don't get me wrong - I have nothing against 3D goggles as a display device - I have issue with the companies and their followers ruthlessly stomping everything in their way trying to claim 3D goggles are the only and best way to go and everything else is a just useless garbage. In that case it's not surprising I feel like clearing up some facts.

This is brilliant example of totally misleading marketing that has absolutely nothing to do with real product or its capabilities - Green screen, CGI and video cuts to fool gullible people :) ... regarding the "VR" titles - I'm not talking about DCS, p3d, xplane, arma, iracing, assetto and so on - those are NOT in any way VR titles and it is quite rude to call them that - those are proper simulators for PC enthusiasts (you can put 3D goggles on but you will be very limited in what you can do) - one of examples of game seriously suffering from being "VR" title for 3D goggles is Elite dangerous - the first one was pushing the boundaries what computers, second and third were pretty advanced and really close to space simulation, Elite now? very pretty and detailed (at least on monitors, TVs and projectors) but very dumbed down - if it was made properly for PC and the 3D goggles completely ignored the game would have been as good as promised on kickstarter ...