memento10

Assuming a triple monitor setup of 5040x1080 for outside view and Helios on a 4th monitor, what are today's ideal computer specs? Considering DCS still really only uses 1 core (sound on 2nd core), and the amount of memory a setup like this uses? Let's keep the budget reasonable, say under $2k for all components. No point in discussing power supplies or cases but the meat and bones: Processor: i5-4670k Motherboard: Asus Z87-Pro Memory Size and Speed: 2 x 8GB, PC3-15000, 1866MHz VideoCard(s): 2 x Geforce 670 (4GB) OR 2 x Radeon 7950 (3GB) Hard Drive: Solid State 240 GB Kingston Do you think there's anything better than this setup today for under $2k all in? Would you do 2 'pretty good' video cards or 1 amazing one? Have to consider having enough video outs for atleast 4 monitors.

I think the most fun would be an AH-6 as it can be fully operated by one pilot, unlike the Apache, and it is a modern day aircraft unlike the Huey. Would be a lot of fun doing low level, high speed attacks, recon, troop insertion etc. Lots of fun and realistic mission possibilities!

Don't want to take this thread off topic but I see many simulator companies quoting the vertical field of view in degrees. For example, 270 degrees horizontal, 80 degrees vertical... http://www.simpit.co.nz/ Is the vertical field of view determined by the number of pixels in the vertical resolution? Or a ratio of the horizontal to vertical? What would be the vertical resolution of this cube? Does the 'zoom' level not affect this number?

So if it's rendering 1280x1280 but projecting 1280x720, is anything being cut-off from the view or is the graphics card just downscaling the vertical resolution from 1280 to 720? If so, I see the performance hit this setup takes just to stay symmetrical...

Thanks for the explanation BHawthorne. I didn't know the aspect ratio preference for 5:4. I'll have to get my head around why a more symmetrical cube is preferential... Is it correct that in a perfectly symmetrical cube, the top projector would completely cover the ceiling as opposed to the rectangular projector only covering about half the ceiling? Using the more rectangular projection of 16:10, do the side projections 'match up' with the ceiling projection? Sorry if my comments or questions are trivial to you guys... just want to learn.

All good points re 1080 vs 800 but it would be 'future proofing' as you could still run the projectors at a lower than native resolution to get reasonable performance. Since the game is CPU bottlenecked, and only uses 1 core, if ever the code is upgraded to use more cores or CPU's get fast enough, you could then switch to 1080p. I agree that it all comes down to budget but maybe starting with three 1080's for now might be a good compromise. Not sure what you could sell used projectors for a couple years from now if you wanted to upgrade. Just a fantasy for me now though... :)

What do you guys think about using these projectors? First Full HD Short Throw. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/tv/news/benq-launches-full-hd-short-throw-video-projectors-starting-rs-100000-317196

how do you think they achieved this dome projection?

I saw that Oakes mentioned using a Black on White sheet called Gravoply. I noticed they now have a Black on 'translucent' white which might be a good solution for backlighting the material. http://www.professionalplastics.com/GRAVOPLY1ENGRAVINGSTOCK

Any chance on an A10 gauge pack...? :)

Do we know how many cores DCS is optimized for? 2, 4 or 8?

So 60" high with at 16:9 projector would be 106" wide. So in this cube system, 106" wide would put the total width, just under 9 feet wide. So I suppose this is a limiting factor to the size of the cube to maintain good video quality. I would even like to see 1920x1080 at 60" as I'd much rather have excellent resolution than take up more space. This cube system would not only be great for DCS but would make so many other games fun to play again even if only using 3 projectors instead of 5. I wish it would be possible to give the cube the sleek 'chamber' appearance of the professional simulators such as the CAE systems... never seen anything for sale that might substitute for that.

BHawthorne, I think the warping and edgeblending would be worth the effort, correct that nthusim can't do 5 projectors and you'd need immersaview? Do you know how much that would cost? Also, in your video showing 180 degree Lomac with 3 projectors, what's the pixel density like sitting where you were? Do you find the resolution is adequate or did you want to mover further away from the screen? Ideally I'd like the system to take up less space than more, perhaps 8 feet by 8 feet. Do you see any problem with that, other than throw distance.

For todays computer, what hardware is the limiting factor for dcs? Cpu speed, number of cores, video card speed or memory? Where should one spend more to get a performance boost?

Could i suggest considering using the cube design but rounding the corners starting about 10 inches from each corner to minimize the 90 degree transition? I think it would help give it a less noticeable corner and better immersion. Simple to do with heavy paper or fabric. I agree that if you're going this far, then the 5 projector solution is the way to go, 4 projectors for 360 view and 5th for ceiling off a mirror, projecors arent designed to point up so the heat can damage it, use a first surface mirror as previously posted. PeterP's first design for the rear view using a projector on its own for rear view is best imho as so many times you want to look directly behind you after pulling upbfrom a bombing or gun run. Looking up is also great when banking or in a dogfight. As Bhawthorne says the hardware and software arent ther to make a dome system possible, this is an amazing project and solution. Im so bore of my 3 monitor setup, doesnt feel immersive at all. I think too much focus has been on the pit than more creative visual systems. Im very interested to seeing a working prototype! One day soon we'll see LED 1920x1080 short throw projectors at an affordable price which would make these projects much more attainable.