|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > October 2004 > New flatscreens
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]
|
|
|
| I have been using my new ViewSonic VP201B for a couple of hours now, and
boyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyoh.......
First of all. this is one sexy monitor, and I was happy to find out that
there was no dead pixels.
Forget about native resolution only..... running games below 1600 * 1200
works perfectly, pixels are interpolated smoothly so that you can NOT see
that the monitor is actually running at higher resolution...
It is even hard to tell on the Windows desktop if I drop resolution to ex
1280 * 1024, not that I want to do that !!!
Viewing angle is phenomenal, and I can not see any change in brightness no
matter how much I move around.
But most importantly, compared to my 3 years old Samsung 191T, ghosting is
as good as gone... and Doom3 is pitch black..
There are drawbacks...
The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz, and some hardcore fraggers will probably
find that on the low side...
And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we only live once ;)
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2004-10-23, 9:46 am |
| In article <417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>,
ask@me (Mr B.) wrote:
quote:
> running games below 1600 * 1200
> works perfectly, pixels are interpolated smoothly
1600x1200 is a lot of pixels to play with! So interpolating
lower resolutions stands a much better chance of looking
good. With only 1280x1024 interpolation can be a lot less
impressive.
quote:
> ghosting is as good as gone... and Doom3 is pitch black..
That's great, because I'm very disappointed by D3 on the two
LCD screens I've seen. Mind you, I'm guessing that screen
cost quite a lot of money, so you'd hope it does a damned
good job :-)
quote:
> The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz
Nature of the technology. Only a problem if you're a hardcore
deathmatching online FPS player who needs those 100Hz refresh
rates to minimise disorientation and aid accuracy when
spinning from one target to the next. The turn rate in an
aircraft's rather slower :-)
quote:
> Viewing angle is phenomenal, and I can not see any
> change in brightness no matter how much I move around.
That's very impressive. Maybe this technology is finally
maturing.
quote:
> And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we
> only live once ;)
True enough. That's how I ended up forking out for an x800
Pro. Mind you, that was before I started contemplating
retirement funds :-)
Anyway, enjoy your monitor. Of course any time now you should
start noticing the dead pixels. It took me a while to realise
I had 3, not one. Fortunately only one is in an area I spend
a lot of time looking at.
Andrew McP
| |
|
| Damn you two, just when I keep myself convenced that the native rez
isssues make it unlikely I'd be satisfied with a flat screen, you come
around braging about this!! (hmmmmmm.....I do have a bonus coming this
month.)
Chuck
andrew.mcp@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com (Andrew MacPherson) wrote in
news:memo.20041023131151.3468B@address_disguised.address_disguised:
quote:
> In article <417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>,
> ask@me (Mr B.) wrote:
>
>
> 1600x1200 is a lot of pixels to play with! So interpolating
> lower resolutions stands a much better chance of looking
> good. With only 1280x1024 interpolation can be a lot less
> impressive.
>
>
> That's great, because I'm very disappointed by D3 on the two
> LCD screens I've seen. Mind you, I'm guessing that screen
> cost quite a lot of money, so you'd hope it does a damned
> good job :-)
>
>
> Nature of the technology. Only a problem if you're a hardcore
> deathmatching online FPS player who needs those 100Hz refresh
> rates to minimise disorientation and aid accuracy when
> spinning from one target to the next. The turn rate in an
> aircraft's rather slower :-)
>
>
> That's very impressive. Maybe this technology is finally
> maturing.
>
>
> True enough. That's how I ended up forking out for an x800
> Pro. Mind you, that was before I started contemplating
> retirement funds :-)
>
> Anyway, enjoy your monitor. Of course any time now you should
> start noticing the dead pixels. It took me a while to realise
> I had 3, not one. Fortunately only one is in an area I spend
> a lot of time looking at.
>
> Andrew McP
>
>
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2004-10-23, 5:46 pm |
|
"Chuck" <Nonyabiz@all.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958B5CDB17C13nonyabizallcom@216.196.97.130...
quote:
> Damn you two, just when I keep myself convenced that the native rez
> isssues make it unlikely I'd be satisfied with a flat screen, you come
> around braging about this!! (hmmmmmm.....I do have a bonus coming this
> month.)
>
> Chuck
>
The ViewSonic VP201B is nice, but as I have touted before, the Dell 2001FP
is an excellent monitor, especially at 20.1" for the money. It's on sale for
$679 right now and it accomplishes all that Mr B. states plus has four
inputs (VGA, DVI-D, S-Video, Composite). I'm sure both will fit the task.
Glad that LCD's are finally gameworthy. Freed up SOOO much space on my
desktop. That, and getting rid of my old Klipsch 2.1 with subwoofer in favor
of smaller profile speakers that attach to the bottom of my monitor, I have
too much room on my desk now to collect more clutter. Having a 20" monitor
with 1600x1200 resolution at this point, I consider a necessity.
I have had my Dell monitor for about 9 months now, and still have zero dead
pixels (knock on wood), and it has functioned perfectly with every game I
have played on it so far. That ranges from flight sims, to tactical combat,
to strategy games, and regretfully FPS's. Hell, I had to turn up the
brightness because Doom 3 was too too black. If anyone has been waiting
because of the LCD "limitations" I would wait no more.
Additionally, 60 fps is more than adequate. Even if you don't lock refresh
rates, you don't notice any tearing or smearing of the image because at 60
fps (actually 16ms is 62.5 fps) you just don't notice it. I know what
everyone says about needing 100 fps+, but my eyes just don't detect anything
detrimental below 35 fps.
Now all we need is that paper-thin OLED monitor to stick to the wall, or
roll up and put it in your pocket or desk drawer. Expect 5-6 years we will
have that affordably.
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2004-10-23, 5:46 pm |
| In article <Xns958B5CDB17C13nonyabizallcom@216.196.97.130>,
Nonyabiz@all.com (Chuck) wrote:
quote:
> just when I keep myself convenced that the native
> rez isssues make it unlikely I'd be satisfied with
> a flat screen
If it helps I'm happy with my 17" LCD for desktop use, but my
next monitor will definitely be a 21" CRT to replace the 19"
CRT when/if it starts misbehaving. Maybe I;m addicted to low
level X-ray radiation or something ;-)
Andrew McP
| |
| Greg Cisko 2004-10-23, 5:46 pm |
| 60hz may be the max for the 1600 resolution. Try 1024x768 and you should
get at least 85hz.
Framerate was OK and no shearing? Also what video card are you using?
--
gcisko@hotmail.com
"Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
news:417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
quote:
> I have been using my new ViewSonic VP201B for a couple of hours now, and
> boyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyoh.......
>
> First of all. this is one sexy monitor, and I was happy to find out that
> there was no dead pixels.
> Forget about native resolution only..... running games below 1600 * 1200
> works perfectly, pixels are interpolated smoothly so that you can NOT see
> that the monitor is actually running at higher resolution...
> It is even hard to tell on the Windows desktop if I drop resolution to ex
> 1280 * 1024, not that I want to do that !!!
>
> Viewing angle is phenomenal, and I can not see any change in brightness no
> matter how much I move around.
> But most importantly, compared to my 3 years old Samsung 191T, ghosting is
> as good as gone... and Doom3 is pitch black..
>
> There are drawbacks...
> The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz, and some hardcore fraggers will probably
> find that on the low side...
> And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we only live once ;)
>
>
| |
| Tempest 2004-10-23, 5:46 pm |
| "Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
news:417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
quote:
> There are drawbacks...
> The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz, and some hardcore fraggers will probably
> find that on the low side...
> And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we only live once ;)
60 Hz on a LCD is not comparable to 60 Hz on a CRT. 60 Hz will always be the
same on an LCD because of American AC electircity standards. You can
actually force the drivers to go higher than 60 Hz but the LCD can still
only display 60 Hz.
The biggest thing that you need to test with your new LCD is *response
time*. I've gone through LCD hell because virtually no LCD I have seen has
acceptable response times (the lower the response time, the better- if it is
too high you get ghosting and smearing with moving light/dark contrasts)
until I got the new Samsung 172x with a 12ms response time. I opted to go
with two low response 17"ers than one huge 21"+ because the larger the LCD,
typically the longer the response time. Only problem with this is that I've
gone through dead pixel hell with Samsung, and after about 50 phone calls
got a replacement. I got my two dead pixel free LCD's, but it was at a cost
of a ton of grief.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2004-10-23, 5:46 pm |
| Not only that, but a 16ms monitor is (1/0.016) or 62.5 Hz maximum before you
get streaking and tearing anyways. Not that it would be that noticeable at
that refresh anyways.
"Tempest" <gtg713b@prism.gatech.NOSPAM.edu> wrote in message
news:clduqh$k39$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
quote:
> "Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
> news:417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> 60 Hz on a LCD is not comparable to 60 Hz on a CRT. 60 Hz will always be
> the same on an LCD because of American AC electircity standards. You can
> actually force the drivers to go higher than 60 Hz but the LCD can still
> only display 60 Hz.
>
> The biggest thing that you need to test with your new LCD is *response
> time*. I've gone through LCD hell because virtually no LCD I have seen has
> acceptable response times (the lower the response time, the better- if it
> is too high you get ghosting and smearing with moving light/dark
> contrasts) until I got the new Samsung 172x with a 12ms response time. I
> opted to go with two low response 17"ers than one huge 21"+ because the
> larger the LCD, typically the longer the response time. Only problem with
> this is that I've gone through dead pixel hell with Samsung, and after
> about 50 phone calls got a replacement. I got my two dead pixel free
> LCD's, but it was at a cost of a ton of grief.
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Greg Cisko 2004-10-23, 5:46 pm |
| Well it certainly sounds like you have been using yours with
all sorts of games with no problem. What is your CPU and
video card?
--
gcisko@hotmail.com
"HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ePCdnaGnqJQFH-fcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
quote:
> Not only that, but a 16ms monitor is (1/0.016) or 62.5 Hz maximum before
you
quote:
> get streaking and tearing anyways. Not that it would be that noticeable at
> that refresh anyways.
>
>
>
> "Tempest" <gtg713b@prism.gatech.NOSPAM.edu> wrote in message
> news:clduqh$k39$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
has[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
|
| "Greg Cisko" wrote...
quote:
> Framerate was OK and no shearing? Also what video card are you using?
Im using a 6800 GT, but as I added watercooling it is heavily overclocked,
currently 420/1.15, and no doubt, 1600 * 1200 will need the power.
But as I said, the monitor still looks outstanding playing in lower
resolutions..... but that is not what we want ;)
Doom 3 runs fine, high quality, 2*AA, and I dont think I got much of a
slowdown going from 1280 to 1600
Far Cry is still a hog, but framerate really doesnt drop much going to
1600.... I dropped AA to keep framerate up in the 30'ies
CoD and CoDUO ofcause runs with no problems, 1600 and 4*AA, and looks
sweeeet !!!
And ghosting is gone, at least to a point where I can not see it...... where
as it was VERY noticeable on my Samsung 191T
And that is only going from 25 mS to 16........ so I bet there is more to it
than just the numbers....
Mr B.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2004-10-25, 12:46 am |
| CPU was P4 3.06 and Video ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
As of two months ago: Athlon 64 3500+ and ATI Radeon X800 Pro
Everything looks and plays great with either one.
"Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:At6dnX6QnuEiGefcRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
quote:
> Well it certainly sounds like you have been using yours with
> all sorts of games with no problem. What is your CPU and
> video card?
>
> --
>
> gcisko@hotmail.com
>
>
> "HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ePCdnaGnqJQFH-fcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> you
> has
> it
> with
>
>
| |
| Mayor Quimby 2004-10-25, 12:46 am |
| How much they is?
And where did you get it?
"Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
news:417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
quote:
> I have been using my new ViewSonic VP201B for a couple of hours now, and
> boyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyoh.......
>
> First of all. this is one sexy monitor, and I was happy to find out that
> there was no dead pixels.
> Forget about native resolution only..... running games below 1600 * 1200
> works perfectly, pixels are interpolated smoothly so that you can NOT see
> that the monitor is actually running at higher resolution...
> It is even hard to tell on the Windows desktop if I drop resolution to ex
> 1280 * 1024, not that I want to do that !!!
>
> Viewing angle is phenomenal, and I can not see any change in brightness no
> matter how much I move around.
> But most importantly, compared to my 3 years old Samsung 191T, ghosting is
> as good as gone... and Doom3 is pitch black..
>
> There are drawbacks...
> The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz, and some hardcore fraggers will probably
> find that on the low side...
> And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we only live once ;)
>
>
| |
| Andrew MacPherson 2004-10-29, 5:48 pm |
| In article <417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>,
ask@me (Mr B.) wrote:
quote:
> running games below 1600 * 1200
> works perfectly, pixels are interpolated smoothly
1600x1200 is a lot of pixels to play with! So interpolating
lower resolutions stands a much better chance of looking
good. With only 1280x1024 interpolation can be a lot less
impressive.
quote:
> ghosting is as good as gone... and Doom3 is pitch black..
That's great, because I'm very disappointed by D3 on the two
LCD screens I've seen. Mind you, I'm guessing that screen
cost quite a lot of money, so you'd hope it does a damned
good job :-)
quote:
> The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz
Nature of the technology. Only a problem if you're a hardcore
deathmatching online FPS player who needs those 100Hz refresh
rates to minimise disorientation and aid accuracy when
spinning from one target to the next. The turn rate in an
aircraft's rather slower :-)
quote:
> Viewing angle is phenomenal, and I can not see any
> change in brightness no matter how much I move around.
That's very impressive. Maybe this technology is finally
maturing.
quote:
> And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we
> only live once ;)
True enough. That's how I ended up forking out for an x800
Pro. Mind you, that was before I started contemplating
retirement funds :-)
Anyway, enjoy your monitor. Of course any time now you should
start noticing the dead pixels. It took me a while to realise
I had 3, not one. Fortunately only one is in an area I spend
a lot of time looking at.
Andrew McP
| |
| Tempest 2004-10-29, 5:48 pm |
| "Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
news:417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
quote:
> There are drawbacks...
> The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz, and some hardcore fraggers will probably
> find that on the low side...
> And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we only live once ;)
60 Hz on a LCD is not comparable to 60 Hz on a CRT. 60 Hz will always be the
same on an LCD because of American AC electircity standards. You can
actually force the drivers to go higher than 60 Hz but the LCD can still
only display 60 Hz.
The biggest thing that you need to test with your new LCD is *response
time*. I've gone through LCD hell because virtually no LCD I have seen has
acceptable response times (the lower the response time, the better- if it is
too high you get ghosting and smearing with moving light/dark contrasts)
until I got the new Samsung 172x with a 12ms response time. I opted to go
with two low response 17"ers than one huge 21"+ because the larger the LCD,
typically the longer the response time. Only problem with this is that I've
gone through dead pixel hell with Samsung, and after about 50 phone calls
got a replacement. I got my two dead pixel free LCD's, but it was at a cost
of a ton of grief.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2004-10-29, 5:48 pm |
|
"Chuck" <Nonyabiz@all.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958B5CDB17C13nonyabizallcom@216.196.97.130...
quote:
> Damn you two, just when I keep myself convenced that the native rez
> isssues make it unlikely I'd be satisfied with a flat screen, you come
> around braging about this!! (hmmmmmm.....I do have a bonus coming this
> month.)
>
> Chuck
>
The ViewSonic VP201B is nice, but as I have touted before, the Dell 2001FP
is an excellent monitor, especially at 20.1" for the money. It's on sale for
$679 right now and it accomplishes all that Mr B. states plus has four
inputs (VGA, DVI-D, S-Video, Composite). I'm sure both will fit the task.
Glad that LCD's are finally gameworthy. Freed up SOOO much space on my
desktop. That, and getting rid of my old Klipsch 2.1 with subwoofer in favor
of smaller profile speakers that attach to the bottom of my monitor, I have
too much room on my desk now to collect more clutter. Having a 20" monitor
with 1600x1200 resolution at this point, I consider a necessity.
I have had my Dell monitor for about 9 months now, and still have zero dead
pixels (knock on wood), and it has functioned perfectly with every game I
have played on it so far. That ranges from flight sims, to tactical combat,
to strategy games, and regretfully FPS's. Hell, I had to turn up the
brightness because Doom 3 was too too black. If anyone has been waiting
because of the LCD "limitations" I would wait no more.
Additionally, 60 fps is more than adequate. Even if you don't lock refresh
rates, you don't notice any tearing or smearing of the image because at 60
fps (actually 16ms is 62.5 fps) you just don't notice it. I know what
everyone says about needing 100 fps+, but my eyes just don't detect anything
detrimental below 35 fps.
Now all we need is that paper-thin OLED monitor to stick to the wall, or
roll up and put it in your pocket or desk drawer. Expect 5-6 years we will
have that affordably.
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2004-10-29, 5:48 pm |
| Not only that, but a 16ms monitor is (1/0.016) or 62.5 Hz maximum before you
get streaking and tearing anyways. Not that it would be that noticeable at
that refresh anyways.
"Tempest" <gtg713b@prism.gatech.NOSPAM.edu> wrote in message
news:clduqh$k39$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
quote:
> "Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
> news:417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> 60 Hz on a LCD is not comparable to 60 Hz on a CRT. 60 Hz will always be
> the same on an LCD because of American AC electircity standards. You can
> actually force the drivers to go higher than 60 Hz but the LCD can still
> only display 60 Hz.
>
> The biggest thing that you need to test with your new LCD is *response
> time*. I've gone through LCD hell because virtually no LCD I have seen has
> acceptable response times (the lower the response time, the better- if it
> is too high you get ghosting and smearing with moving light/dark
> contrasts) until I got the new Samsung 172x with a 12ms response time. I
> opted to go with two low response 17"ers than one huge 21"+ because the
> larger the LCD, typically the longer the response time. Only problem with
> this is that I've gone through dead pixel hell with Samsung, and after
> about 50 phone calls got a replacement. I got my two dead pixel free
> LCD's, but it was at a cost of a ton of grief.
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Mayor Quimby 2004-10-29, 5:48 pm |
| How much they is?
And where did you get it?
"Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
news:417a2cb4$0$150$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
quote:
> I have been using my new ViewSonic VP201B for a couple of hours now, and
> boyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyohboyoh.......
>
> First of all. this is one sexy monitor, and I was happy to find out that
> there was no dead pixels.
> Forget about native resolution only..... running games below 1600 * 1200
> works perfectly, pixels are interpolated smoothly so that you can NOT see
> that the monitor is actually running at higher resolution...
> It is even hard to tell on the Windows desktop if I drop resolution to ex
> 1280 * 1024, not that I want to do that !!!
>
> Viewing angle is phenomenal, and I can not see any change in brightness no
> matter how much I move around.
> But most importantly, compared to my 3 years old Samsung 191T, ghosting is
> as good as gone... and Doom3 is pitch black..
>
> There are drawbacks...
> The monitor seems fixed at 60 Hz, and some hardcore fraggers will probably
> find that on the low side...
> And CRT's are cheaper.... but hey.... we only live once ;)
>
>
| |
| HockeyTownUSA 2004-10-29, 5:48 pm |
| CPU was P4 3.06 and Video ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
As of two months ago: Athlon 64 3500+ and ATI Radeon X800 Pro
Everything looks and plays great with either one.
"Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:At6dnX6QnuEiGefcRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
quote:
> Well it certainly sounds like you have been using yours with
> all sorts of games with no problem. What is your CPU and
> video card?
>
> --
>
> gcisko@hotmail.com
>
>
> "HockeyTownUSA" <magma@killspam.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ePCdnaGnqJQFH-fcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> you
> has
> it
> with
>
>
|
| |
|
|