Gaming screen

[Hydrobond]

I vote for that being 115 frames.  

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

[Cecil]

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

[Hydrobond]

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.purdu....edu/pdfs/Section%205.pdf

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

[Cecil]

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.