Parhelia

[TedL]

Has anyone had experience of the Matrox Parhelia 512? Perhaps with three screens?

Ted

[Simon Evans]

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware...trox_parhelia/

Doesn't mention frame rates, does mention resolution difficulty in 3-screen format (800x600 equivalent, hmm, not good unless the FSAA and anistropic filtering is blistering).

Not sure why it is better than a network solution, myself.

Simon Evans

[tdbscotland]

I don't have the card so can't comment on frame rates but it differs in that it can use the "front view" and stretch this across the three monitors. In this mode you can use the "minus" key for a wider view.

Martin

[Simon Evans]

It's the same problem as with so many reviews, it doesn't get to the core of the argument about why something is good/bad/indifferent when used in an FS environment.

We get a small mention that 800x600 (2400x600) is the resolution limit `right now` - so what does that mean? Is it a driver limitation that will be overcome, or is it a sim limitation that only the next generation of sims will solve..?
Possibly the FAA and anisotropic filtering offset the resolution limitation, but Matrox are not the pioneers driving technology forward - they are small players in the great world of simulation and gaming and I would worry that buying a Matrox Parhelia card would consign me to the boondocks, unless driver development is a priority, which it never has been in the past with this company...

For me, it's a `wait and see` I don't have three monitors, so it's not high on my list of priorities! But I do see potential in the technology.

Simon Evans

[TedL]

Yes, I tend to agree with you Simon. But where do you get the 2400*600 ? Looking at Matrox's own site they give 3840*1024 over three screens - unless I'm getting something wrong somewhere.

Ted

[Simon Evans]

It's mentioned in the article - but they don't expand on that issue which is a bit of a problem for what is, ostensibly, a review of the card in simming mode...


Like I say, I have no idea whether it's a hardware, software or FS-only issue, but I don't like the idea of running FS across three monitors at 800x600. You can make it look pretty good with FSAA and anisotropic tweaks on a single monitor, but if that outside view was spread over three..?

Simon Evans

[tdbscotland]

Seemingly it runs at 1920x480. i.e.each screen is approx 640x480.
Remember its only processing one view in reality and I think the 1920 is the max definition for any one view.

Martin

[deltaflight]

http://forum.matrox.com/cgi-bin/mgaf...=30&LastLogin=

[Simon Evans]

Well, it would take a LOT - probably money - to sell me a GC that was going to display FS2002 at 640x480! Even over three screens at 1920x480 and with advanced anisotropic filtering and FAA... unless I'm missing something here about the FAA or anisotropic features of this card and it is capable of miracles..!

The problem is that the native resolution for FS2002 is 1024x768. It is `native` by virtue of the fact that highest texture resolution found is 1024x1024. That's what it means to turn the display sliders up to maximum.
If the display driver doesn't detect that resolution I see no indication in-game that it is capable of using 1024x1024 textures at a lower screen resolution. It would appear that 512x512 would be the limit with a Parhelia card, and that is just totally unacceptable and STILL take a frame rate hit for this `desirable` feature.

I also see from the link deltaflight provided that the Forum techies have little or no knowledge of the use of their new card with FS2002..!
Kinda curious when it IS touted as the simmers card of choice, wouldn't you say?
I know if it was my company I'd have done shedloads of testing with FS, Fly!, CFS, X-Plane and any other aviation simulation product I could lay my hands on. My knowledge of the functionality of that card with such products would be encyclopaedic and I wouldn't need to leave it to other forum visitors to solve my customers problems.

I'm getting a suspicious smell from that SimHQ review... why no close-up screen shots?

Another `be nice when it's finished` product from Matrox..?

Are there any happy users out there who could contribute something positive to this thread?





Simon Evans

[deltaflight]

I couldnt agree more Simon. Thats clearly why I posted the link. The techies dont have a clue as its obvious.

640x480 is unacceptable on 1 monitor and I cannot fathom why it would be any better across 3!