RF Generation Message Board

I want this.

 :fap:

Nice

Back to Oblivion now.

:fap: indeed

I'm in love. :inlove:

Meh, I wouldn't know where to look, then I'd have a ceisure even though I can't spell it.

I like the 15 frames per second in the top right ;)

I would have to site farther back.
It leaves too much open for someone to come in on a side if you sit that close.

Awesome!!  I agree though, you'd have to sit further back...otherwise you won't be able to see all of your enemies fast enough...

Waste of money... LCD projectors can do much larger than that for less than $1,000.  This was prolly up in the $10,000 range.

I agree to a certain extent. First of all, I didn't realize this was that expensive. Secondly, there isn't periferal vision with a projector. :-[
If they could come out with a projector with the same concept, that would be sweet! I could see myself breaking down & purchasing a projector in the future.

You could do a curved screen with a projector, though you would need to have some additional lens to allow for the curved surface.  This still wouldn't be as expensive as the above display.  

Assuming a monitor cost of $400, this LCD array would total $9,600, before you take into account the special hardware needed to run all 24 of them at once. Then you have to build the frame for the display, which looks like it would have taken a few days.   Needless to say, this is impressive.

Oh, and I got a projector about two years ago, and have absolutely loved it.  If I was to buy one now though, I would get a DLP one instead of an LCD one.  The image quality in DLP is much, much better for the same amount of money.

17inch LCD are around 200 bucks. Plus this has more of a wow factor.

If I had my choice I would have a nice Marantz projector for my viewing pleasure.

 :fap:

If Quake 3 runs at 15 fps what does Doom 3 run like ;)

Better yet hows F.E.A.R. run ;)

F.E.A.R. would just look like a big pretty picture that moves every 4 days.

I vote for that being 115 frames.  

You just cant see the hundreds digit because of the bezel on the screen.

Nope, its 15. You guys fail to see the resolution that its running at. A projector can make a huge image, but the resolution is extremely limited .  This setup is running at 10240x3072, destroying any projector, but making the game run slower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUGabGDLg8g

Im gonna have to call shenanegans on that resolution.   While that is what the monitor cluster is capable of displaying, it is not what the game is running at.  I'm sure the game isn't running at that resolution, if it's run by a single computer.  If they use a bunh of comptuer to render each screen, then the framerate would be in the high 100's if not higher.  It still looks like 115 to me.  The video is too smooth to be 15 frames a second.

And I would still take the projector, because I think it's better.
- One continuous image.
- Scalability.
- Portability
- Cost.

We have something similar here at Purdue, a 4*3*2 3D projector wall.  The way it works is there is an array of 4-3 screens each with 2 projectors that produce a 3D image.  Check it out.
http://www.envision.purdue.edu/pdfs/Section%205.pdf

This is cool too.
http://www.envision.purdue.edu/pdfs/Section%203.pdf

To quote engadget:
Leading the life of an Engadget editor, you don't ever think you could come upon a rig or setup with too much screen real estate. Sure, you can overcompensate in any number of ways -- like, say, too much drive space (what, you really need 8TB?) -- but pixel acreage never struck us as one of them. Until now. Say hello to Virginia Tech's 31 million pixel-pusher friends, their 24 display array "workstation" runs at 10240 x 3072. Apparently it takes 12 Linux servers running distributed computing software to operate, and can play Quake III at 15-30FPS. Well done, sirs, well done. We take it back, it's not too much. It's never too much.