PDA

View Full Version : Finding the DOT at 1600x1200



fuser59
11-12-2004, 06:11 PM
S~ Fellow Simmers...

I really enjoy maxing out all my "Realism settings" and watching the sea and other objects in 1600x1200 (32Bit) resolution; however to my dismay, it seems that I am at a competitive disadvantage during multiplay with others at lower settings such as 800x600. They are able to see me from much greater distances.

Does anyone out there in IL2FBAEPPF land know if there may perhaps be a change in the upcomming patch to address this?

I know that the problem is "real" because when I go to 800x600 res., I can see much farther as well, and my gameplay kills increase rapidly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I just would like to see the range corrected for 1600x1200.

If there is anyone who shares my concerns about this matter, please respond and lets hope it will be addressed by the developers of the sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thank you!

Gutang
11-12-2004, 07:00 PM
S~ Fuser

I agree with you there. My only true frustration with the sim as a whole is the difficulty in visually aquiring targets. I have never bothered switching to such low resolutions in order to counter the problem because the trade-off in visual quality and pixellation isnt worth it to me.
Im not sure if you've seen the thread but we may be in luck however, because steps are being taken to address the issue. Mind you I cannot tell how much of a difference there is by the screenshot but you can judge for yourself.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=9671046042

Maple_Tiger
11-12-2004, 10:02 PM
All those who use 800x600 resolution are cheaters, and they should all be banned from all servers.

To be more serious, I find 1024x768 to be a happy balance.

Fennec_P
11-13-2004, 12:20 AM
This seems to be a factor in a lot of games. It doesn't seem possible to make everything perfectly equiatable over a variety of graphic settings.

For example, I'd play RTCW with low lighting (to remove concealing shadows) and a high picmip (to eliminate gritty camouflage-ish textures) in order to be competitive. If you played the game in other settings, you were screwed b/c most of the level would be under shadow, and enemy soldiers would blend in with wall textures.

The same in IL-2, where night missions are a little easier with light amplification via brightness knob, ground textures on low to see low flying planes, and visibility distance on low to take advantage of bulky far LODs. It also doesn't hurt to use a driver hack to force a wireframe view, a simple solution to "the bar", though I personally wouldn't go that far.

Sure, it'd be nice if the graphics options punished low settings rather than rewarding them, but that wouldn't be any more fair, would it? At least, with low settings having the advantage, everyone is able to use them.

Its also hard to have sympathy for those shafted by high graphics settings. The fact you can run the game in 1600x1200 means you have a machine far better than mine, and thus have far too much money and free time on your hands http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tully__
11-13-2004, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
All those who use 800x600 resolution are cheaters, and they should all be banned from all servers.

To be more serious, I find 1024x768 to be a happy balance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Tully__
11-13-2004, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
...The fact you can run the game in 1600x1200 means you have a machine far better than mine, and thus have far too much money and free time on your hands http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Believe me, the shooting advantage that you get at close range from having the hardware to run at these settings far outweighs the visibility disadvantage at a distance. The faster framerate makes the difference between an easy deflection shot and an unworkable one in otherwise identical circumstances.

Brock.Landers
11-13-2004, 03:56 AM
That's very true Fennec_P, a lot of the 'uber' FPS tournament players use monitors set to 1024 because of the advantage you get iwth regards more hits landing.

Seeing as I've never run as high as 1600x1200 I'd never noticed the problem affected the differently structured IL-2 series too!

ICDP
11-13-2004, 05:56 AM
Fuser,

Are you using FSAA at that resolution? I used to but I was finding it hard to keep contact with bogies. I turned of FSAA and the visibility improved dramatically, dots are visible at much longer ranges and mid range contacts are much easier to track. This is all due to the fact that FSAA blends dots into the background making them invisible.

Give it a go, the jaggies are not noticalbe and your situational awareness will improve.

1.JaVA_Hornet
11-13-2004, 10:35 AM
Hey guys,

You don`t read the forum very well.
Somewhere is written that with the coming patch
finding dots has been made much easier by
adding a white dot next the black one.

Here is the link:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=9671046042


I am also very glad that it will finally be bettered.
I am also coming blind of that searching.
At the moment I fly much offline because the most servers has full reality.
But that is another discussion. In real life
you have reflections etc.

BuzzU
11-13-2004, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Hornet:
Hey guys,

You don`t read the forum very well.
Somewhere is written that with the coming patch
finding dots has been made much easier by
adding a white dot next the black one.

Here is the link:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=9671046042


I am also very glad that it will finally be bettered.
I am also coming blind of that searching.
At the moment I fly much offline because the most servers has full reality.
But that is another discussion. In real life
you have reflections etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say you don't read the forum very well. Check the second post in this thread.

1.JaVA_Hornet
11-13-2004, 04:07 PM
You are right!!

I am sorry i overread it.

BuzzU
11-13-2004, 04:57 PM
This must be where i'm supposed to say "Gotcha" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daytraders
11-13-2004, 10:15 PM
so are there any pc's that can run at 1600 x 1200 at max settings with this game i mean 50fps + ?, also on a 19" monitor 1280 x 1024 is the max setting really and even without aa i dont see jaggies either, you must be useing a 21" monitor i take it.

Gutang
11-13-2004, 10:31 PM
"..also on a 19" monitor 1280 x 1024 is the max setting really and even without aa i dont see jaggies either, you must be useing a 21" monitor i take it."

You are mistaken. The potential maximum resolution is dependant upon individual monitor specifications. I have a 19" monitor and I can run at 1600x1200 because my monitor supports that resolution. My dad has a 19" monitor but he can only run at 1024x768 because that is the maximum resolution his monitor supports..

ICDP
11-14-2004, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daytraders:
so are there any pc's that can run at 1600 x 1200 at max settings with this game i mean 50fps + ?, also on a 19" monitor 1280 x 1024 is the max setting really and even without aa i dont see jaggies either, you must be useing a 21" monitor i take it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can run at 1280x960 without FSAA and I get 50 FPS in perfect mode but the jaggies are noticable IMHO. I prefer to use 1600x1200 at the same perfect settings and I get FPS pegged at roughly 37 (half 75) vsync on, my average FPS is 42.

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 07:36 AM
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.

Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.

If you want the high res you need an LCD.

I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.

LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point.

ICDP
11-14-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.

Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.

If you want the high res you need an LCD.

I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.

LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO no LCD can match the quality of a top class CRT. The only thing LCD's have got going for them is size, you have to pay a massive amount of money for a decent spec LCD and even then it still isn't as good as a decent CRT.

I build/fix/sell PC's for a living and I am talking from experience. Would your 29 inch monitor be one of those with a very low dot pitch (.68 - .74) and a resolution of 800x600?

I am currently running a 19" monitor and it beats even high end LCD's of the same screen size and at a fraction of the cost.

Bikewer
11-14-2004, 07:52 AM
Somewhat aside from resolution, (I have a 19" and run at 1024 X 728, which gives me pretty good FR and lets me see aircraft at long distance. But I find the "full real" servers to be rather unrealistic.
I was flying one last night, and I carefully stalked 3 different aircraft that I just barely avoided shooting because I recognized them as friendlies at the last second. (This was mostly P40s against Zeros) From the six, it's really hard to ID the enemy properly.
We generally do not have the advantages real pilots had; flying in well-practiced groups with radio communication and all.

I much prefer the servers that use the discrete little black "friendly only" icons that show up when you're close enough.
We have enough trouble keeping track of things.
(Speaking of which, TrackIR is definitely on my Xmas list).

Brock.Landers
11-14-2004, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.

Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.

If you want the high res you need an LCD.

I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.

LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, go and learn about monitors before spouting such pure BS. NO LCD can match the quality of a top class CRT THAT IS A FACT. The only thing LCD's have got going for them is size, you have to pay a massive amount of money for a decent spec LCD and even then it still isn't as good as a decent CRT.

OH and I build/fix/sell PC's for a living and I am talking from experience. Would your 29 inch monitor be one of those with a very low dot pitch (.68 - .74) and a resolution of 800x600? Hardly top class is it?

I am currently running a 19" monitor and it beats even high end LCD's of the same screen size and at a fraction of the cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, indeed. LCD is great for the eyes but still a fair way behind the best (and comparitively cheaper) CRT displays for colour and sharpness. It is only the very best LCD displays that have a low enough response time to make games with quick moving graphics playable. I'm looking forward to an LCD in the future, just not until the gap in further narrowed.

BinaryFalcon
11-14-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Its also hard to have sympathy for those shafted by high graphics settings. The fact you can run the game in 1600x1200 means you have a machine far better than mine, and thus have far too much money and free time on your hands <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

It hardly takes a killer machine to pull it off.

I've been running at 1600x1200x32 for about 2 years now with an Athlon XP 2000+, 1GB of RAM and a 128MB GF4 Ti4200 (OC to 4400 levels) and it works great. While I could be wrong, I'd suspect most here (you included) have at least that much machine at this point.

It's not an FPS, sustained framerates in the high 20s to low 30s are perfectly fine. Anything sustained above 35-40 is cake.

I will note however that I'm running the above with trilinear filtering and no AA, as it's not really necessary at 1600x1200. Nice, yes, but 16x12 with no AA still looks better than 1024x768 with tons of AA.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.

Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. You just need a quality monitor to do it (ie, not something you picked up at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or likely the one that came with your OEM PC).

I specifically purchased a 19" monitor (Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 920) that would support 1600x1200 @ 85Hz. It looks great. At that size tube and resolution it's a bit too small for desktop use at 3 feet away, but it still looks nice and sharp. For gaming though, it's wonderful.

However, the sim definitely penalizes anyone who runs at higher than 1024x768. With icons off and cockpit on at 16x12 most any aircraft becomes invisible against the ground as close as 300m unless they're firing at you. That's stupidly close and completely unrealistic no matter how well camoflaged it is.

Dropping back to 1024x768 solves the problem though, and aircraft can be spotted and tracked under the same conditions at 3-4 times the distance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LCD is great for the eyes but still a fair way behind the best (and comparitively cheaper) CRT displays for colour and sharpness. It is only the very best LCD displays that have a low enough response time to make games with quick moving graphics playable. I'm looking forward to an LCD in the future, just not until the gap in further narrowed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I figure in about 2 more years they'll be there (or really close), but for now they're still falling just a bit short of where I'd consider them a fully viable alternative.

That said, I purchased my current 19" monitor about 2 years ago with the intention that it would be the last CRT I buy. I figured after 5 or so years when it was due for replacement, LCDs would be both cheap enough and good enough that they'd be the natural choice.

So far everything seems to be proceeding on schedule. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daytraders
11-14-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gutang:
"..also on a 19" monitor 1280 x 1024 is the max setting really and even without aa i dont see jaggies either, you must be useing a 21" monitor i take it."

You are mistaken. The potential maximum resolution is dependant upon individual monitor specifications. I have a 19" monitor and I can run at 1600x1200 because my monitor supports that resolution. My dad has a 19" monitor but he can only run at 1024x768 because that is the maximum resolution his monitor supports.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gutang m8 i know i also can run 1600 x 1200 on my 19" but its to small a res i think for 18" viewable picture.

BuzzU
11-14-2004, 12:10 PM
I have a 21' Sony F500R monitor. I can run 2048 res if I turn off fsaa. It runs 75 Hz at that res, and looks pretty good. The bad part of the monitor is the price. I'm hoping it lasts a long time, but i've had it 3 years with 12 hours a day useage. I'm getting worried about it. How long do monitors last?

Daytraders
11-14-2004, 12:15 PM
yes lcd's are still far off from a good crt tube that is a fact and i h8 the ghosting you still get on even top lcd screens, thats a fact hehe

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock.Landers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.

Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.

If you want the high res you need an LCD.

I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.

LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, go and learn about monitors before spouting such pure BS. NO LCD can match the quality of a top class CRT THAT IS A FACT. The only thing LCD's have got going for them is size, you have to pay a massive amount of money for a decent spec LCD and even then it still isn't as good as a decent CRT.

OH and I build/fix/sell PC's for a living and I am talking from experience. Would your 29 inch monitor be one of those with a very low dot pitch (.68 - .74) and a resolution of 800x600? Hardly top class is it?

I am currently running a 19" monitor and it beats even high end LCD's of the same screen size and at a fraction of the cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, indeed. LCD is great for the eyes but still a fair way behind the best (and comparitively cheaper) CRT displays for colour and sharpness. It is only the very best LCD displays that have a low enough response time to make games with quick moving graphics playable. I'm looking forward to an LCD in the future, just not until the gap in further narrowed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I spent 5 years of my life in a repair depot doing warranty work on CRT's, LCD's, and projectors.

LOL OMG ROFLMAO pwnz0rd!!!111

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
I have a 21' Sony F500R monitor. I can run 2048 res if I turn off fsaa. It runs 75 Hz at that res, and looks pretty good. The bad part of the monitor is the price. I'm hoping it lasts a long time, but i've had it 3 years with 12 hours a day useage. I'm getting worried about it. How long do monitors last? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Industry standard: 2 years.

Before some jackhole e-machines salesman smarts off:

An average CRT can not be aligned to color spec after 2 years of use. Because of this, and because of the way warranties work (send in broken monitor we send you new old stock OR refurb), the life expactancy on any CRT device is only 2 years.

Always get the extended warranty on any CRT device.

Gutang
11-14-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I spent 5 years of my life in a repair depot doing warranty work on CRT's, LCD's, and projectors.

LOL OMG ROFLMAO pwnz0rd!!!111 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sorry but whats your point (and is the noob speak really necessary)?

I would have to agree that an LCD monitor is yet to impress me when compared to high quality CRTs.

ICDP
11-14-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:I spent 5 years of my life in a repair depot doing warranty work on CRT's, LCD's, and projectors.

LOL OMG ROFLMAO pwnz0rd!!!111 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jesus Christ, what age are you, twelve?

pwy239487f711rd to you too!!! or whatever that ****e you typed means?

You must not have been good at your repair job because you obviously never got any of them working or you would have seen that CRT screens are higher quality.

I...W I L L...T Y P E...S L O W L Y...F O R...Y O U,...C R T...S C R E E N S...A R E...H I G H E R...Q U A L I T Y...T H A N...E X P E N S I V E...L C D...S C R E E N S.

Y O U...I D I O T

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 02:14 PM
CRT are carp.

Even the very best can not ever touch the high-res pixel accuracy of an LCD.

Period.

Gutang
11-14-2004, 02:43 PM
Well, the popular opinion of this thread is 4-1 against you, so unless you can give some proof stop stating your opinion as fact Baldie.

slarsson
11-14-2004, 03:11 PM
Well, I don't want to get into the childish ping-pong game, but I just moved from a Panasonic 17" CRT to a Samsung 21.3" LCD.

The LCD shows no ghosting, and the image is far superior.........

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 03:27 PM
You cite popular opinion and demand proof. Thats neato.

My opinion is fact. An LCD can provide far better pixel accuracy at high resolution.

Gutang
11-14-2004, 03:53 PM
Thats right, when the majority of people agree about one thing and one person disagrees, its up to that lone person to bear the burden of proof because they are contesting popular opinion.
And sorry, but saying 'my opinion is fact' is not enough, although its quite funny.
Now, if the majority of people agreed with you then I would need to be the one to prove them wrong, which isnt the case.

ICDP
11-14-2004, 04:02 PM
BaldieJr,

Your first post was a putdown to anyone who dared to claim that they could get good quality at 1600x1200 with their CRT's. I responded by stating that your opinion was laughable given that any decent CRT has better overall image quality than even the highest priced LCD's.

I will admit that my first response was confrontational but given that you practically called me and anyone else who used a CRT with a top-end graphics card an idiot it was quite tame.

Top quality LCD's cost a LOT of money and they are still not equal in image quality over a good CRT. Your average OEM/standard cheap LCD is as about as much use to a gamer as tits on a bull, for a fraction of the cost a good CRT monitor will look sharper than the equivelant sized LCD.

For the price of a 6800GT and a top quality 19" CRT you could buy a top quality LCD and a 9600XT. I know what I (and any other gamer) would prefer, hell most peoples complete systems cost less than a quality LCD.

The simple fact is that given the cost of a quality LCD the benefits do not equal the rewards.

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 04:16 PM
If the majority wants to sit around and recycle magazine quotes from 5 years ago, feel free, but anyone with half a brain can take a look at a modern LCD (at high resolution) and see that it is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the CRT.

I'm using 1280x1024 and LOVING IT.

Gutang
11-14-2004, 04:24 PM
Baldie, you would create alot less contention if you stopped using phrases such as 'anyone with half a brain can take a look at a modern LCD (at high resolution) and see that it is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the CRT', thereby sublty indicating that others around you are morons if they dont agree with your opinion.
Truth be told I have not personally seen or compared every high end CRT with every high end LCD, but from what I have personally seen I have not been impressed with LCDs. Nobody who knows me in person whould go as far as to say I have half a brain (or am mentally deficient as you veiledly indicated) because of that fact.

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 04:42 PM
Here is my post, and your response:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Even a trinitron tube looks like carp at that res.

Be realistic. 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor just isn't going to work. Even on the very best monitor, the chances of the beam hitting the pixels perfectly, without electron spray around the shadow mask, are nill.

If you want the high res you need an LCD.

I have one, I run it at 1200x1024, and can see dots long before I'd see them at 800x600 on my old 29" inch monitor.

LCD's are where its at. Anyone who spends $500 on a video card while using a CRT monitor is just missing the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO no LCD can match the quality of a top class CRT. The only thing LCD's have got going for them is size, you have to pay a massive amount of money for a decent spec LCD and even then it still isn't as good as a decent CRT.

I build/fix/sell PC's for a living and I am talking from experience. Would your 29 inch monitor be one of those with a very low dot pitch (.68 - .74) and a resolution of 800x600?

I am currently running a 19" monitor and it beats even high end LCD's of the same screen size and at a fraction of the cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say anything personal about anyone, or indicate that anyone was stupid.


You said "IMHO no LCD can match the quality of a top class CRT."

This is wrong.

I would also like to point out how you claim your 19" CRT is better than high-end LCD's, even though this is patently false.

If your 19" CRT was so hot, why would anyone buy a "high end LCD"?

My LCD was only $325. Is that high-end? I don't think so. But I've got a high-end NEC with a trinitron CRT sitting in front of me right now... It costs about the same as my LCD and you know what? Its BLURRY. It looks like GARBAGE.

Its a high-end CRT up against a fairly-priced LCD and guess which looks better?

The LCD.


Now, if you'll look at my smarty-pants remark earlier in this thread (it has others quotes in it), you'll see why I responded they way I did. SOMEONE edited someone elses response in order to troll, and that someone is who I quoted. If you can't be bothered to look at the details, please find a way to not be bothered to talk to me.

In short: LCD's own CRT's now. There is no reason to buy a new CRT unless you are super-duper poor.

Daytraders
11-14-2004, 05:18 PM
your all forgetting also that even on the very top lcd screens you get ghosting especially in fast games even with a 15 or 16ms responce time and most are still 20+ms responce and at a res of 1280 x 1024 @ 75 Hz Max Resolution still flickers to me slightly even thou they say it dont just try going from 100 or 85 down to 75 and your see, you get no ghosting on a crt, period, but lcd's look cool and are ok for anything but gameing at the moment, 2d games play on them ok thou and some slow 3d games, that comes from a few friends that bought lcd's after haveing a crt you will notice ghosting its a pain.

Fliegeroffizier
11-14-2004, 05:33 PM
IMHO, my 19" SONY Trinitron CRT at 1600X1200 runs circles around any LCD which I have personally observed, for FB/AEP/PF. I ALWAYS "fly" FB/PF at 1600x1200.

Comparing the newest LCD's to run-of-the-mill CRT's isn't a fair test/comparison.

The only thing better than a 19" Trinitron would be one of the top of the line 21" models.

BaldieJr
11-14-2004, 06:23 PM
Lies Lies Lies and more lies.

Do you know how a CRT works? You do realize that CRTs (especially cheap ones) ghost? They have to, otherwise they wouldn't work.

The only reason ghosting was ever brought up is because older LCD's couldn't switch the pixels off/on fast enough. But you know what? That was the past.

So was the flat-world theory.

The CRT I'm comparing is the very expensive, brand new NEC trinitron on my desk at work. I'm comparing it to the brand new, not-so-expensive LCD on my desk at home. I've played PF on both and I can tell you point blank:

The LCD is a far cry better.

RedDeth
11-15-2004, 12:35 AM
ive got a several year old dell 21 inch that i bought last month used for 85 bucks at a computer store. ill stack it up against any lcd. ive been looking at buying an lcd and i really dont see any difference between LCD and CRT.

my monitor is completely crisp and zero blur. if you have a crt that is blurry then its broke. either that or you need to realize you need to zap it every couple months to make the picture crisp again.

i see no value to the LCD other than space and coolness factor of newer tech. youll never notice a difference between them playing FB.

the most difference you will get on visuals is upgrading vid cards. PERIOD.

now if you can find me a LCD for 85 dollars that is 21 inches let me know

now you can shut up about uber duber LCDS

BM357_Raven
11-15-2004, 02:08 AM
I dont use either of those.... I prefer to dogfight by instinct. Monitors are just clutter...

RAAF_Edin
11-15-2004, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
"...My opinion is fact..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there's a contradiction http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

AFJ_Locust
11-15-2004, 02:14 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=9671046042