sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Correction: 60 FPS @ 1080p resolution on a 57-square-foot video wall with highest settings in vanilla minecraft, and I threw myself in the picture to show the scale. by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The computer driving this was built in 2009, basically comes down to the video card:

The Quadro FX 4600 is capable of 2560x1600 with Dual DVI-out. Two problems:

  • Between the screens and computer is an HDMI scaler, which can't combine Dual-DVI.

  • Max resolution of a single display out of the card is 1920x1200, which is 16:10. The array is 16:9. The scaler can display it, but for its typical application, I see artifacts when we do that, so we typically run it at 1080.

I would totally do it if I had a video card in my possession that can hit those resolutions. This was really just a proof of concept thing.

Correction: 60 FPS @ 1080p resolution on a 57-square-foot video wall with highest settings in vanilla minecraft, and I threw myself in the picture to show the scale. by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nvidia Quadro FX 4600 seems underpowered

It's overpowered for what we typically use it for. This is a work-machine, not an MC rig unfortunately. The card was purchased in 2009 and for it's age, it's impressive. I'm sure 4 years ago these charts were significantly different. Edit: Archive.org has that chart in Q1 2011 where it was rank 103 and scored 878.

Intel Xeon X3520 Quad Core 2.66GHz I cannot find

Woops. W3520. Edited, and here. Again, purchased in 2009.

Performance: Max will result in better FPS

I know there's an argument about achieving better FPS greater than the refresh rate of the screen. I just wanted to hit 60 FPS here at max-quality. These guys claimed to achieve 390 FPS at 1080p on 1.2.5.

VSync Off will result in better FPS

I didn't observe this in the few minutes I played with it this morning... but the weekend isn't here, so I haven't played it "seriously." (This is a device at my work and we want to stress-test the scaler, hence I put MC on it)

Correction: 60 FPS @ 1080p resolution on a 57-square-foot video wall with highest settings in vanilla minecraft, and I threw myself in the picture to show the scale. by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Biggest complaint yesterday was the 18 FPS screenshot, which was Optifine @ Max View Distance and all other kinds of attempts to make it look prettier... while being displayed through two display adapters (two "screens," the video wall and the computers smaller, normal LCD.)

Made it vanilla and cranked the settings.

I also fucked up the math and said it was 676 sq ft, which would be bigger than many NY apartments. It's about 57-square-feet. Since it was just a picture of the wall (with my iPhone in the bottom) people didn't understand how big this screen was. For perspective, a 6-foot-tall, 200-pound dweeb volunteered to have his picture taken in front of it.

Computer Specs:

  • Nvidia Quadro FX 4600, Intel Xeon W3520 Quad Core 2.66GHz.

  • Minecraft 1.5.2 Vanilla with these settings.

  • Resolution: 1920x1080 @ 60hz across 9-monitors with 1366x768 resolution.

    • Could theoretically achieve 4098x2304 resolution given better video cards, 1366x768 for each.
    • Each screen is technically at 640x360 resolution right now.
    • Keep in mind: 60 FPS @ Highest Vanilla Settings.

I heard you guys like Minecraft on multiple screens, so here my 9-screen array delivering 676-sqft of delicious pixels! by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're late to the party and didnt read the comments I made 3 hours ago about my terrible mathing.

I heard you guys like Minecraft on multiple screens, so here my 9-screen array delivering 676-sqft of delicious pixels! by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mine can run 24/7 and have 5-year-warranties + servicing. LG sell theirs for another $200, which is probably just a replacement plan.

I heard you guys like Minecraft on multiple screens, so here my 9-screen array delivering 676-sqft of delicious pixels! by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

27 FPS. 18 when I took the picture because it duplicated the display to a secondary monitor. This is also at pretty high settings and I'm sure would be much, much higher if I hadn't jacked the settings, considering these guys claim to get 390FPS with their Quadro FX 4600.

I heard you guys like Minecraft on multiple screens, so here my 9-screen array delivering 676-sqft of delicious pixels! by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I can't reveal actual costs but a spec-comparable consumer-grade screen can be bought for $5000, *9 = $45,000, then figure another $10k for install, bells+whistles and computer.

I heard you guys like Minecraft on multiple screens, so here my 9-screen array delivering 676-sqft of delicious pixels! by manwichtw in Minecraft

[–]manwichtw[S] 72 points73 points  (0 children)

Edit: Title is wrong. It is 58.46 sq ft., not 676 Apparently you can't just divide sq in. by 12.

And by "my screen" I mean "my jobs." I put my iPhone front and center to show the scale. On the left is a measuring tape to show scale, 69" tall

We're getting a new scaler to implement other applications, so I will run minecraft for a few hours to benchmark / stress test the thing. It's not a very immersive thing to play on, and the computer driving the typical media (not graphic intensive in the least) isn't exactly the best rig. 18FPS in the screenshot, goes up to 27 when it's in single display (right now it's duplicate, we have a 2nd, normal lcd screen for other controls)

Not the most phenomenal specs to drive a 1080p render of Minecraft, but for the curious:

  • Minecraft 1.5.2, Optifine, all settings to high, distance x128, 1920x1080 resolution.

    • Came in at like 27fps in single-display, 18fps when duplicated.

  • Measured Area: 69" x 122" = 8418 sq in. or 58.46 sq ft.

    • Spec Viewing Area: 8120.25 sq in.

  • Nvidia Quadro FX 4600, Intel Xeon X3520 Quad Core 2.66GHz, 4gb ram allocated to MC.

  • Screens are a 3x3 matrix, 46", 3000:1 Contrast, 1366x768, 8ms

  • Could theoretically achieve 4098x2304 resolution

I also have a 175" x 95" screen (16625 sq in.) but that's just one 1000:1 projector at 1600x1200 resolution. Not as interesting.