|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > March 2006 > FS9 with LCD, AF (anisotropic filtering) problem?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
FS9 with LCD, AF (anisotropic filtering) problem?
|
|
|
| Hi,
I just bought a 19" Viewsonic (VA902b) LCD monitor, and am quite
happy with the display. This is my first LCD.
One problem I 'might' have(?):
Loading FS9 after installing the 19" LCD, my preset 16x
anisotropic-filtering did not work at all. Jets (and A/I jets, fonts,
lettering, etc.) were extremely blurry.
After messing around with FS9 in-game settings (particularly, 'Max
Global Texture Size' setting), suddenly AF started working again.
With my old CRT, AF worked fine no matter what.
To anyone using an LCD with FS9, is there anything in particular I
should look for, in order for AF to behave properly in FS9?
I thought it might be a good idea to delete my old fs9.cfg file, and
have FS9 auto-generate a new one, but did not try this yet.
Any input would be most appreciated.
| |
| Adam Webb 2006-03-16, 11:31 pm |
| > Loading FS9 after installing the 19" LCD, my preset 16x
quote:
> anisotropic-filtering did not work at all. Jets (and A/I jets, fonts,
> lettering, etc.) were extremely blurry.
sound like you are not using the native res of the monitor, you need to be
using 1280x1024, or everything will be blury.
--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk
| |
|
| The ugly truths about LCDs are:
1) They only display crisply at a true 1 to 1 resolution. Look on the
monitor display controls for options on how to scale the screen. On Dell
the options on Images section are: 1:1 and Fill and Aspect. Select 1:1.
Any other selection will make fonts align terribly and any lines drawn on
the screen will have pixel alignment issues beyond the control of the
display driver.
2) LCDs only display at the full screen size of the LCD when you display at
maximum resolution, IF you have 1:1 turned on (which is why few use that
setting). If max resolution is 1600x1200, at 1:1 a 1280x1024 desktop only
fills a small internal portion of the screen, and you cannot change that
except by screwing up the aspect ratios.
If you simultaneously select 1:1 *and* select Windows resolution to be the
maximum resolution the LCD is capable of doing, THEN you will get a stunning
clear and vivid display. How many non-technical users ever figure those
things out on their own? Very few. That's why Dell makes default aspect
ratio "Fill", so that the great masses will perceive that they are getting
full utilization out of their screen real estate, no matter what resolution
they select. No Dell ad is going to tell you that to get high quality you
are going to have to live by some very rigid rules.
If you find text display too small at the maximum resolution of the LCD,
then you have to hassle with reconfiguring Windows to use large fonts, and
then resetting the horizontal and vertical spacing between icons on desktop.
That gives a great result, although for personal taste I like really tiny
text better.
Alternatively, get a mongo-huge LCD. The one that will simply blow you
away is the Westinghouse (yes, that's right Westinghouse  ) LVM-37w1 which
is a 37 inch LVD capable of a true HDTV display with no interpolation of the
pixels. It has all of the pixels for a 1920x1080p display, and you can use
it as the native Windows desktop. I use one in a living room as a
Microsoft Media Center / Windows XP display, and for the $1400 I paid for it
as an out-of-box unit at Best Buy, it is one of the best technology buys I
have ever made. I look at this thing just dreaming of the day I will have
one in front of me, and one on each side to left and right, running FS2006
with correct perspective views just as if I am in a real plane. Just a
dream for now. The colors on that unit are bad, but more than sufficient
for someone who is not a graphic artist.
--
Will
"JM" <ikyspam@com.net> wrote in message
news:hptj121m5sm7lqet4pktv4v79mbhc77hrh@4ax.com...
quote:
> Hi,
>
> I just bought a 19" Viewsonic (VA902b) LCD monitor, and am quite
> happy with the display. This is my first LCD.
>
> One problem I 'might' have(?):
>
> Loading FS9 after installing the 19" LCD, my preset 16x
> anisotropic-filtering did not work at all. Jets (and A/I jets, fonts,
> lettering, etc.) were extremely blurry.
>
> After messing around with FS9 in-game settings (particularly, 'Max
> Global Texture Size' setting), suddenly AF started working again.
>
> With my old CRT, AF worked fine no matter what.
>
> To anyone using an LCD with FS9, is there anything in particular I
> should look for, in order for AF to behave properly in FS9?
>
> I thought it might be a good idea to delete my old fs9.cfg file, and
> have FS9 auto-generate a new one, but did not try this yet.
>
> Any input would be most appreciated.
>
| |
|
| where did you get the westinghouse? I know you said best buy, but is that
bestbuy.com, or an australian retailer?
$1400 for a 37 inch 12ms LCD????
"Will" <westes-usc@noemail.nospam> wrote in message
news:wPSdnZycN6hc-IfZRVn-pw@giganews.com...
quote:
> The ugly truths about LCDs are:
>
> 1) They only display crisply at a true 1 to 1 resolution. Look on the
> monitor display controls for options on how to scale the screen. On Dell
> the options on Images section are: 1:1 and Fill and Aspect. Select
> 1:1.
> Any other selection will make fonts align terribly and any lines drawn on
> the screen will have pixel alignment issues beyond the control of the
> display driver.
>
> 2) LCDs only display at the full screen size of the LCD when you display
> at
> maximum resolution, IF you have 1:1 turned on (which is why few use that
> setting). If max resolution is 1600x1200, at 1:1 a 1280x1024 desktop
> only
> fills a small internal portion of the screen, and you cannot change that
> except by screwing up the aspect ratios.
>
> If you simultaneously select 1:1 *and* select Windows resolution to be the
> maximum resolution the LCD is capable of doing, THEN you will get a
> stunning
> clear and vivid display. How many non-technical users ever figure those
> things out on their own? Very few. That's why Dell makes default
> aspect
> ratio "Fill", so that the great masses will perceive that they are getting
> full utilization out of their screen real estate, no matter what
> resolution
> they select. No Dell ad is going to tell you that to get high quality
> you
> are going to have to live by some very rigid rules.
>
> If you find text display too small at the maximum resolution of the LCD,
> then you have to hassle with reconfiguring Windows to use large fonts, and
> then resetting the horizontal and vertical spacing between icons on
> desktop.
> That gives a great result, although for personal taste I like really tiny
> text better.
>
> Alternatively, get a mongo-huge LCD. The one that will simply blow you
> away is the Westinghouse (yes, that's right Westinghouse ) LVM-37w1
> which
> is a 37 inch LVD capable of a true HDTV display with no interpolation of
> the
> pixels. It has all of the pixels for a 1920x1080p display, and you can
> use
> it as the native Windows desktop. I use one in a living room as a
> Microsoft Media Center / Windows XP display, and for the $1400 I paid for
> it
> as an out-of-box unit at Best Buy, it is one of the best technology buys I
> have ever made. I look at this thing just dreaming of the day I will
> have
> one in front of me, and one on each side to left and right, running FS2006
> with correct perspective views just as if I am in a real plane. Just a
> dream for now. The colors on that unit are bad, but more than sufficient
> for someone who is not a graphic artist.
>
> --
> Will
>
>
> "JM" <ikyspam@com.net> wrote in message
> news:hptj121m5sm7lqet4pktv4v79mbhc77hrh@4ax.com...
>
>
| |
| Gerbelium 2006-03-17, 7:33 pm |
| Set your desktop to the monitor's native res.
In display prop.s, use Cleartype.
And of course, use your DVI port for crispy digital goodness - D-sub sux.
JM wrote:
quote:
> Hi,
>
> I just bought a 19" Viewsonic (VA902b) LCD monitor, and am quite
> happy with the display. This is my first LCD.
>
> One problem I 'might' have(?):
>
> Loading FS9 after installing the 19" LCD, my preset 16x
> anisotropic-filtering did not work at all. Jets (and A/I jets, fonts,
> lettering, etc.) were extremely blurry.
>
> After messing around with FS9 in-game settings (particularly, 'Max
> Global Texture Size' setting), suddenly AF started working again.
>
> With my old CRT, AF worked fine no matter what.
>
> To anyone using an LCD with FS9, is there anything in particular I
> should look for, in order for AF to behave properly in FS9?
>
> I thought it might be a good idea to delete my old fs9.cfg file, and
> have FS9 auto-generate a new one, but did not try this yet.
>
> Any input would be most appreciated.
| |
|
| The Westinghouse has a common street price between $1600 and $1800 USD. I
got an out-of-box unit at a local Best Buy, probably a customer return.
This was in California, USA.
I agree for the price it is a killer good buy. Most people don't
understand that the large LCDs have to interpolate bits to simulate HDTV
resolution with a smaller number of real pixels. The Westinghouse has the
goods: all of the 1920x1080 pixels you need for Windows desktop or HDTV.
--
Will
"Alex" <alexnat@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:dve9m3$2cpf$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
quote:
> where did you get the westinghouse? I know you said best buy, but is that
> bestbuy.com, or an australian retailer?
>
> $1400 for a 37 inch 12ms LCD????
| |
|
| Another point is get a video adapter whose DVI port is able to display at
the higher resolutions clearly. Surprisingly, Tom's Hardware reports that
many nVidia's just don't drive DVI at high resolutions well. This is an
area where the ATI RADEON's seem to excel across the whole product line.
--
Will
"Gerbelium" <gerbelium@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:O1ySf.1062$5B4.43@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
quote:
> Set your desktop to the monitor's native res.
> In display prop.s, use Cleartype.
> And of course, use your DVI port for crispy digital goodness - D-sub sux.
| |
| Gerbelium 2006-03-17, 11:32 pm |
| I knew there was a reason I haven't bought nVidious for ages.
Will wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Another point is get a video adapter whose DVI port is able to
> display at the higher resolutions clearly. Surprisingly, Tom's
> Hardware reports that many nVidia's just don't drive DVI at high
> resolutions well. This is an area where the ATI RADEON's seem to
> excel across the whole product line.
>
>
> "Gerbelium" <gerbelium@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:O1ySf.1062$5B4.43@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
Aswell of course, as FS9.
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:35:53 GMT, "Gerbelium" <gerbelium@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
_________
Thanks guys, for the tips/info about LCD settings, etc.
I'm already set at the monitor's native-res (1280x1024), as with
games too, such as FS9.
My LCD monitor (Viewsonic VA90b) came only with D-Sub connect, no
DVi, although I have DVI output on my video card (X800XT).
All I was worried about was Anisotropic Filtering, and my worries
were put to rest, after some tests.
I took and saved screenshots of all AF concerns I had with FS9 with
new LCD monitor, saved-game for screenshot positions, then moved the
LCD over and 'lugged' the 17" Viewsonic CRT back into action.
Result was, merely booting to the XP desktop with the CRT running, it
looked as if I was viewing through a 'Hollywood-type' lens screen,
very blurry. I thought something was wrong with the CRT, but it's
fine; ...just very blurry compared to the LCD.
I loaded FS9 and previous screenshot saves, and took pics using the
CRT. Then made 'side-by-side' comparisons of FS9 pics, CRT vs. LCD. I
could not see any difference in AF clarity (no matter which monitor
they were viewed with). I initially had problems getting AF to work,
and 'thought' AF wasn't as clear with the LCD, but it really is.
The LCD will also drop down to 1024x768 res and show the same quality
AF as does the CRT.
Anyway after the tests I'm quite impressed with this LCD monitor, as
it was very inexpensive, and is so much sharper than the older 17"
CRT.
Btw I can find no aspect-setting for this LCD, although I think the
standard is 4:3. I have no idea if it can be changed (to 4:4 ?).
Thanks again,
JM
quote:
>I knew there was a reason I haven't bought nVidious for ages.
>
>Will wrote:
>
>Aswell of course, as FS9.
>
>
>
| |
|
| "JM" <ikyspam@com.net> wrote in message
news:160n12l16r2db25lutt3rmu346m5qu01np@4ax.com...
quote:
> Btw I can find no aspect-setting for this LCD, although I think the
> standard is 4:3. I have no idea if it can be changed (to 4:4 ?).
Aspect setting of 4:3 or 16:9 for the overall image has nothing to do with
whether you are set for 1:1 pixelation. They are different concepts.
1:1 means that every *pixel* used by your display driver for Windows desktop
resolution corresponds to one and only pixel on the physical LCD. If you
are set to 1024x768 then only that number of pixels is used on the LCD.
That's why a large 24" LCD capable of 1920x1200 display, when set to 1:1 on
the hardware, and set in software to a Windows desktop at 1024x768, displays
just a small area in the center of the LCD. Only a small subset of all of
the pixels in the LCD are used.
With a digital DVI fed LCD, you can do the following experiment: set your
Windows desktop resolution to 800x600. When you do this, does the Windows
desktop fill the LCD or even a substantial portion of it? If yes, you are
not set to 1:1 pixelation.
Given that your description of your LCD is that you have only a D-SUB 15-pin
VGA connection, and no digital DVI connector, you don't have any ability to
use 1:1 settings. You have no digital input to control the individual
pixels of the LCD. That's a shame by the way. You are losing the
primary value in having an LCD.
--
Will
| |
| stevem 2006-03-18, 7:33 pm |
|
"JM" <ikyspam@com.net> wrote in message
news:160n12l16r2db25lutt3rmu346m5qu01np@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:35:53 GMT, "Gerbelium" <gerbelium@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> Btw I can find no aspect-setting for this LCD, although I think the
> standard is 4:3. I have no idea if it can be changed (to 4:4 ?).
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
> JM
Aspect ratio is essentially fixed by the monitor during manufacture; CRTs
use a 4:3 ratio, such that a 17" monitor uses a 'native' resolution (not so
important with a CRT) of 1024x768, while a 19" CRT uses 1280x960. For some
reason known only to the manufacturers, 17" and 19" LCDs use an aspect ratio
of 5:4, giving native resolution of 1280x1024. Many people erroneously set
19" CRTs to 1280x1024, resulting in incorrect appearance of the picture
(circles appear as ellipses, etc.). In other words (assuming you wish to use
the entire screen) you cannot change the aspect ratio of the screen; this is
fixed in manufacture.
Regards,
Steve.
| |
| dleblanc5234@gmail.com 2006-03-24, 2:01 pm |
| I Tried an 19" LCD Samsung 930B 8ms response time 700:1. What I notice
is that at 1280 x 1024 resolution I lost about 15 FPS in FS9. Has
anybody experience the same thing? And at 1024 x 768 resolution is
was no better then my CRT.
Don
| |
|
| On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:53:38 -0800, "Will"
<DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote:
quote:
>1:1 means that every *pixel* used by your display driver for Windows desktop
>resolution corresponds to one and only pixel on the physical LCD. If you
>are set to 1024x768 then only that number of pixels is used on the LCD.
>That's why a large 24" LCD capable of 1920x1200 display, when set to 1:1 on
>the hardware, and set in software to a Windows desktop at 1024x768, displays
>just a small area in the center of the LCD. Only a small subset of all of
>the pixels in the LCD are used.
Hello,
Okay I think I know what you mean now. 1:1 setting means the LCD
can/will show precisely (pixel for pixel) what resolution is selected,
and may leave part of the LCD display blank.
I guess it is a shame my LCD doesn't have DVI input. Yet the price
was only $255.00 total, and very 'easy' on the pocketbook. It's just
for occational/personal use, and I don't really need anything more;
used only for gaming, email and browsing the internet.
Thanks again,
| |
|
| On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:19:39 GMT, "stevem" <nobody@home.com> wrote:
quote:
>Aspect ratio is essentially fixed by the monitor during manufacture; CRTs
>use a 4:3 ratio, such that a 17" monitor uses a 'native' resolution (not so
>important with a CRT) of 1024x768, while a 19" CRT uses 1280x960. For some
>reason known only to the manufacturers, 17" and 19" LCDs use an aspect ratio
>of 5:4, giving native resolution of 1280x1024. Many people erroneously set
>19" CRTs to 1280x1024, resulting in incorrect appearance of the picture
>(circles appear as ellipses, etc.). In other words (assuming you wish to use
>the entire screen) you cannot change the aspect ratio of the screen; this is
>fixed in manufacture.
>Regards,
>Steve.
Hello,
I finally found a website had aspect-ratio specs for my monitor, at:
http://ostg.pricegrabber.com/search...77380594c162813
It states that the LCD aspect-ratio is 4:3, so that's a bit different
I guess.
The native res is 1280x1024. If I drop res down to 1024x768, an
optional 'reminder screen' pops up, asking me I want to switch back to
1280x1024.
Thank for the info, about aspect-ratio too.
| |
|
| On 19 Mar 2006 08:47:32 -0800, dleblanc5234@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
>I Tried an 19" LCD Samsung 930B 8ms response time 700:1. What I notice
>is that at 1280 x 1024 resolution I lost about 15 FPS in FS9. Has
>anybody experience the same thing? And at 1024 x 768 resolution is
>was no better then my CRT.
That would be fairly typical for frame-rates to drop (increasing res
to 1280x1024), as a higher resolution would take more computer/video
power to display more pixels.
Comparing the 2 resolutions (basically), 1280x1024 vs. 1024x768, the
higher resolution will demand about 20/25% more computer-power,
compared to 1024x768.
| |
| stevem 2006-03-24, 2:02 pm |
|
"JM" <ikyspam@com.net> wrote in message
news:drhs12942ts4tduqt9cljbfe55oqfd80ch@4ax.com...
quote:
> Hello,
>
> I finally found a website had aspect-ratio specs for my monitor, at:
> http://ostg.pricegrabber.com/search...77380594c162813
>
> It states that the LCD aspect-ratio is 4:3, so that's a bit different
> I guess.
>
> The native res is 1280x1024. If I drop res down to 1024x768, an
> optional 'reminder screen' pops up, asking me I want to switch back to
> 1280x1024.
>
> Thank for the info, about aspect-ratio too.
Don't know where that site got its info, but that's just plain wrong! Cancel
the numbers down, and it's obvious; 1024x768 is 4:3, but 1280x1024 is 5:4
(equally, 1280x960 is 4:3). However, there's one other point that is perhaps
causing some confusion here; you're using analogue input, which actually
gives you a little bit more leeway than DVI (as on my Viewsonic VX912). But
you'll still find that if you set your screen size to 1280x960 (4:3) shapes
will be incorrect; you need to use 1280x1024 (5:4) because that's what your
aspect ratio actually is (despite what the site says).
Regards,
Steve.
|
| |
|
|