What Srceen Recommendations for IL2/gaming [Archive] - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

View Full Version : What Srceen Recommendations for IL2/gaming

kgwanchos

11-01-2010, 12:11 PM

speculum jockey

11-01-2010, 12:29 PM

Blackdog_kt

11-01-2010, 03:41 PM

I can second the Dell for good image quality.
I have had the 2209WA for a year or two, it's 22" and runs at 1680x1050 (it's a 16:10 aspect ratio).

They have released a follow up series with 23" monitors that also feature displayport connectors (mine only has DVI and analog).

The good thing about these Dells is that they give you IPS panel performance at lower prices. They use an e-IPS panel type which has most of the advantages of the IPS design but at a lower price.

The only problem with IPS is that the bigger ones tend to get pricier. However, for 22"-24" sizes i think the benefits of no color distortion and true 180 degree viewing angles justifies the slight price difference.

speculum jockey

11-01-2010, 04:30 PM

The only problem with IPS is that the bigger ones tend to get pricier. However, for 22"-24" sizes i think the benefits of no color distortion and true 180 degree viewing angles justifies the slight price difference.

I do not even want to think about what kind of hardware you will need to run SOW on a 24" LCD's native resolution with everything maxed. Sounds like a good way to blow $3-4K.

Chivas

11-01-2010, 04:53 PM

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that the expensive IPS panels were not the great for gaming because of their high response times and input lag.

TeeJay82

11-02-2010, 12:04 AM

well i warmly recommend 16:10 1920X1200.

Bearcat

11-02-2010, 12:09 AM

http://file.walagata.com/w/bearcat/750px-Vector_Video_Standards2.svg.png

Igo kyu

11-02-2010, 12:48 AM

http://file.walagata.com/w/bearcat/750px-Vector_Video_Standards2.svg.png
That's a lovely image. However it's missing 1366 x 768, which is a current laptop size, does anyone have any idea what they call that? It's also missing EGA, which was something like 640 x 350, that was a long time ago, the pixels in EGA weren't square, it was a screen the same shape as VGA, just with bigger pixels vertically, that was about 1990 that showed up for a short time. Thinking about it, CGA wasn't (always) smaller than VGA either, the pixels were just huge (and the colours very grotty).

He111

11-02-2010, 12:39 PM

Samsung have a 24" - 2ms - LED - narrow bezel - low power monitor.

BX 2450, I think?

.

dduff442

11-02-2010, 05:08 PM

I've recommended the monitor I own before: the Asus VW266H. It's fairly cheap and can display any resolution up to 1920x1200 without distortion or blurriness.

dduff

brando

11-02-2010, 05:52 PM

In the spirit of 'bigger is better' I popped about £300 on a Hanns.G 27.5" monitor which has a resolution of 1920x1200.
My HD5870 runs it fine, maxed out, and it is adjustable via the monitor software, either by presets or manual adjustment. It replaces the 24" that I was using, now being used my wife.

It's cheap and big and came without any dead pixels, and it shows off IL-2 very nicely. I hope it lasts ;)

B

ytareh

11-02-2010, 06:51 PM

Blackdog_kt

11-02-2010, 07:46 PM

I do not even want to think about what kind of hardware you will need to run SOW on a 24" LCD's native resolution with everything maxed. Sounds like a good way to blow $3-4K.

Well, resolutions are pretty much fixed nowadays. This is a different debate by the way, but people always fall for the advertisement stickers and don't realize that the bigger the screen, the higher the resolution you need to maintain acceptable pixer-per-inch values. Right now we might have the 1920x1080 resolution being the standard and it does take some hardware to make it work right, but the truth is that such high resolutions look awful on anything bigger than 27" if you sit close to it.

Your point is right and that's why i opted for a screen with a lower resolution, since i will be having to run everything at the monitor's native res i wanted something that's good enough but not high enough to warrant a graphics card upgrade with every new game. It's also a 16:10 monitor which gives me a bit more vertical space that will come in handy when scanning upwards for boogies (i don't mind the horizontal black bars when watching movies at all).

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that the expensive IPS panels were not the great for gaming because of their high response times and input lag.

Actually, i was worried about this before buying mine, but it ended up being far from the truth (luckily for me that is, as i had the monitor shipped from the UK).

Generally speaking, the way TFT LCD specs are defined and measured is a joke and highly misleading to the buyer.

The 2ms response times you see quoted on the horrible image quality TN panels are black to white response times. That means they are the measurements taken under optimal conditions, as black to white (a full rotation of the liquid crystal) is the fastest transition possible. Grey to grey response times are what matters most (ie, adjusting of colours in a gradual way by moving the crystals from one in-between position to the next), but they are also the hardest ones to achieve and manufacturers rarely put them on specs because it doesn't look good having a "8ms" stamp on the box.

Input lag is a totally different thing as well. This has to do with how much time it takes for the image to be "fed" to the LCD matrix and not how fast the matrix can show a changing image (which is response time). Ironically enough, monitors with high input lag are usually monitors that incorporate some kind of "anti-blurring" technique: if their response times are slow, they keep 1-2 frames in a buffer and running an algorithm on them they can sort of "pre-align" their crystals between the currently displayed frame and the next 2 frames in order to ensure fluid switching of frames. The effect this has is that it messes with color fidelity, plus you are seeing 2 frames into the past. That's why it's called input lag. When you're playing IL2 with such a monitor, you are actually seeing 2 frames behind other players. Contrary to network lag the game world is still moving, but what you see is 2 frames old. Not too good for competitive/combat games as you can see.

I'm happy to say that my IPS has minimal input lag. Easiest way to measure it is have a clock/timer running full screen on two monitors, a CRT (CRTs have no input lag whatsoever) and a TFT. Take photos every 10 seconds or so, divide the total runtime with the discrepancy between the two timers and you can find out what your input lag is.

To make my monitor blur i have to specifically try to force the issue: i take my trackclip pro in my hand and move it frantically left and right across the TrackIR camera, ok, then it blurs a bit if i keep this up for 4-5 seconds. However, this is a non-issue as the speed required to do this would leave me with a dislocated neck if i was normally wearing the trackclip on my headphones, ie i will never need to or even be able to request that fast a change in rendering from my monitor, so it's ok.

Seriously, IPS panels are getting cheaper (certain sub-types that is) and they are very much worth it. It's the closest thing available to CRT image quality and it has TRUE 180 degree viewing angles with absolutely no blurring/color shifting at all. The e-IPS panels are the low cost ones, look for one of those. If you are interested in 120Hz refresh rates to use nVidia's 3d goggles, you'll have to wait for the x-IPS panels.

Les

11-02-2010, 08:25 PM

Hi ... this may seem a pretty dim question to some of you but Ive had the same 19inch 4:3 ratio Lcd screen for 6 years. I want to get the best size / ratio to make the most of Sow when it comes out and I guess from other games in general. Im in the UK and I generally dont buy the latest and greatest but go for good value tried and trusted.

Its the ratio that I really unsure about. Will Bob look right on a wide screen format monitor ? I dont want stretch to fit nonsence .. round things gotta be round right ? ...

What do you all use / recommend ??

Cheers

Back when I was looking to buy a monitor a year or more ago, the 22" LCD's were the best value for money, but doing a quick check, it looks to me like the 24" monitors might be edging them out now.

Looking at a price search engine where I am and doing a straight currency conversion, there are 24" LCD's @ 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, going from 130 to over 250 GBP, while the 22" range (@1680x1050 in general) goes from about 110 to over 250 GBP.

I personally think a 24" monitor would be the minimum I'd want to look at.

I think too if you could run a monitor at 1680x1050 (22") you could probably run one at 1920x1200 (24") without much or any compromising of image settings. (Not saying you can though, as you didn't mention what video-card you're using.) Any higher resolution than that and you would need some serious video-card power to run modern games at good frame-rates, and you'd be looking at 27-30" monitors anyway which aren't in the value for money segment you said you were interested in.

It's harder to recommend a brand though. There are some brands I personally would never even consider buying, because I just happen to think they're crap, or good but too expensive, but that's just me. And at the end of the day it's always at least a bit of a gamble whichever one you go with.

An interesting fact, though I don't know if the numbers have changed, is that despite all the different brand names, there are only about three LCD screen manufacturers in the whole world. So what we really get to choose is basically the outer shell those screens are housed in, as the actual screens themselves are shared between the different end-producers. Generally speaking, that means when you're paying less money for that no-name brand monitor you're paying for the cheapest components they can get away with putting behind, and around, a last-pick-of-the batch screen. And when you're dealing with something that can be knocked right out by the failure of even the most insignificant of those components, it probably does pay to go with a more reputable brand. What those brands are depends on where you are to some extent. I went with Samsung myself.

mazex

11-02-2010, 09:02 PM

My .2

I had a Samsung T240 (24" 1920x1200) that I gave to my wife and bought a 22" 120Hz Samsung 2233Rz with 1680x1050 for myself that I use now and that I like a lot...

So why go down? Two arguments for me:

I really like the 120Hz and when I bought it a year ago no 120Hz 24" where available - it's better than one might think, feels like the old CRT days!

Going down also makes you computer faster ;) Less pixels to draw and my E8400 Core 2 Duo / GTX275 is getting old so going down in resolution gave me a boost :)

The monitor I had on track before buying the Rz was the HP ZR24W... I use a large IPS monitor at work and IPS kicks the living daylights out of TN panels when talking color and image quality... But no 120Hz and 2ms grey-to-grey there unfortunately!

brando

11-03-2010, 01:10 AM

I had the super cheap and wuite good 28" Hanns for a weekend too before returning it to the shop and buying a used Dell 30incher.Its worth considering that whatever you buy ,at least for IL2 ,if you dont play at 1024x768 you will find it harder to see enemy dots...

It's so long since I ran 1024x768 that I can't even remember what it looks like. I ran 1280x960 on my 19" Iiyama when I got my Ati x850 and only moved to a flat screen about eighteen months ago. I can't imagine running 1024x768 on a monitor with a 1900x1200 natural resolution. I've not noticed any trouble spotting aircraft a long way out.

B

Chivas

11-03-2010, 04:11 AM

It's so long since I ran 1024x768 that I can't even remember what it looks like. I ran 1280x960 on my 19" Iiyama when I got my Ati x850 and only moved to a flat screen about eighteen months ago. I can't imagine running 1024x768 on a monitor with a 1900x1200 natural resolution. I've not noticed any trouble spotting aircraft a long way out.

B

I have a Samsung T260 25.5" with a native resolution of 1920x1080. I see the enemy dots alot sooner when running 1024x768. The dots are physically larger when running the lower resolution. Frankly I don't see much difference in quality when I turn up the AA and AF.

baronWastelan

11-03-2010, 05:29 AM

I have a ViewSonic 28" LCD at 1920x1200 and can see fighters up to 8Km away (est). In Il-2 1946. Graphix is nvidia GTX 285.

kgwanchos

11-03-2010, 12:13 PM

Fantastic response from the forum as always .... many thanks to you all... Im looking at going for an e-IPS panel I think and the Dell ones come highly thought of. A bit over budget but I love the reports of clarity and true colour reproduction as Im a keen photographer too.

Im running an ATI 4870 1024Mb card by the way so I would prob stay with 22 inch....

Blackdog_kt

11-03-2010, 01:38 PM

Not sure, but i think their 22" line is discontinued though. I have the Dell 2209WA and was checking out their website out of curiosity, then i saw they have a new e-IPS 23" and i think i also saw a 21.5". These two also come with a display port interface which mine lacks. However, they seem to be a bit slower than my previous generation 22", so it's all a balancing act.

As for quality and reliability, i'm very pleased.
These Dell models we're talking about usually have panels made by LG, they sport a sturdy, stable base with a vertical pivot mount, good ergonomics and firm adjustment points so that they won't drift or lose alignment due to their own weight.
They also come with a 3 year zero pixel defect warrantee. That's not just stuck pixels, or stuck pixels of a certain colour as some brands word their warrantees in the fine print but zero pixel defects of any kind whatsoever, with on-site replacement to boot. I think this coverage can also be extended to 5 years for a small fee.

Colours and viewing angles are superb (note: do some calibration though, even if only using online guides and doing it by eye it makes a tremendous difference), it's not as slow as people might think (i've had tons of gaming on mine and it does fine), the 60Hz refresh rate doesn't make your eyes hurt because refresh works differently than in CRTs, it's reliable and has great service/replacement options. I bought mine from a shop in the UK that ships all over the EU to save on cost (local prices were 100-150 Euros higher), got it in a week and i'm covered by an EU-wide warrantee so even if it starts acting up i can contact my local Dell dealership and have a replacement arrive at my doorstep.

If you buy directly from your local dealer you can go even further, to the point of being a royal pain of a customer and Dell will encourage you to do so :grin:
When looking around in hardware forums prior to making my decision, there were people saying how they'd talked on the phone directly to the salespersons that gave them reduced price quotes, mentioned slight or very minor manufacturing defects and the salesmen encouraged them to ship their monitors back for refurbishment and have a new one shipped to to them...some people went through 2-3 different monitors this way.

kgwanchos

11-04-2010, 09:47 AM

Thanks BlackDog all really helpful stuff ...

Les

11-04-2010, 09:06 PM

... Im looking at going for an e-IPS panel...A bit over budget but I love the reports of clarity and true colour reproduction as Im a keen photographer too...Im running an ATI 4870 1024Mb card by the way so I would prob stay with 22 inch....

Definitely go for an IPS monitor if you're into photography. Their marginally longer response time isn't an issue, and in a side by side comparison there's no contest in terms of colour reproduction (I've seen this for myself).

Going IPS drastically reduces the range of monitors available to choose from too, which can be seen as a good thing.

From Dell's latest models, you're looking at a U2211H (21.5") or a U2311H (23"). Both of these monitors have a 1920x1080 resolution, 16:9 aspect ratio. So one isn't going to be harder on your graphic card than the other, and if you do have to turn the resolution down for increased performance, to 1680x1050, there'd only be a marginal difference in image quality between the monitors. (There are 26-27" monitors that use a 1920x1080 resolution and they look fine, though you wouldn't want to try and stretch that resolution any further. What this means is, 1920x1080 crammed into 21-24" is above spec and should look much better, hence the Ultrasharp name I guess). From what I can see on the Dell site, the only difference between the two monitors is their screen-size, their average brightness (with the 23" slightly brighter), and their cost. Going up to 24" though results in an insane price-jump (with a marginal increase in resolution). There are older models on the Dell site too but they're actually more expensive and don't have any real advantages as far as I can tell.

In the same price range, from Samsung there's the B2440L and the B2430L which are 23.6" 1920x1080 16:9 5ms monitors, with no difference between them other than their outer design.

From Viewsonic there's the VP2365wb and that's all I'm going to say about that.

HP are too expensive and NEC are insanely expensive (as are the other full-on professional monitors). LG announced just the other day two new 21.5" and 23" IPS monitors will be coming out in November but they're LED models and so will be too expensive too. And that's about it, as far as I can tell...

Samsung or Dell...

and...

Out of curiosity I just went to the UK Dell site (which has a crap layout btw, and no I don't want to take part in a survey), to see if they had the same monitors I found on my local Dell site, and saw the prices. I hope I don't sound patronizing, but I didn't realize how bad you guys are getting ripped off over there. Computer parts over here are generally subject to mark ups that are highly dubious IMO, but even so, doing a straight currency conversion, the U2211H (21.5") should cost 186GBP, not 292GBP (106GBP difference), and the U2311H (23") should cost 217GBP, not 351GBP (134GBP difference), with a 31GBP difference between the two models, not a 59GBP difference. Converting back the other way and seeing thsoe prices in my local currency, I'm not sure I'd want to pay those prices. Sort of puts a damper on the whole thing. As Blackdog said, it's probably a good idea to shop around and try to get those prices down.

It is worth it to have a good monitor though IMO.

Anyway, hope that helps, was doing it for my own knowledge as much as anything.

StkNRdr

11-05-2010, 01:36 PM

I've recommended the monitor I own before: the Asus VW266H. It's fairly cheap and can display any resolution up to 1920x1200 without distortion or blurriness.

dduff

I currently use this 25.5" monitor. For IL2 I use 1680 X 1050.

Stick

Blackdog_kt

11-05-2010, 02:49 PM

Definitely go for an IPS monitor if you're into photography. Their marginally longer response time isn't an issue, and in a side by side comparison there's no contest in terms of colour reproduction (I've seen this for myself).

Going IPS drastically reduces the range of monitors available to choose from too, which can be seen as a good thing.

From Dell's latest models, you're looking at a U2211H (21.5") or a U2311H (23"). Both of these monitors have a 1920x1080 resolution, 16:9 aspect ratio. So one isn't going to be harder on your graphic card than the other, and if you do have to turn the resolution down for increased performance, to 1680x1050, there'd only be a marginal difference in image quality between the monitors. (There are 26-27" monitors that use a 1920x1080 resolution and they look fine, though you wouldn't want to try and stretch that resolution any further. What this means is, 1920x1080 crammed into 21-24" is above spec and should look much better, hence the Ultrasharp name I guess). From what I can see on the Dell site, the only difference between the two monitors is their screen-size, their average brightness (with the 23" slightly brighter), and their cost. Going up to 24" though results in an insane price-jump (with a marginal increase in resolution). There are older models on the Dell site too but they're actually more expensive and don't have any real advantages as far as I can tell.

In the same price range, from Samsung there's the B2440L and the B2430L which are 23.6" 1920x1080 16:9 5ms monitors, with no difference between them other than their outer design.

From Viewsonic there's the VP2365wb and that's all I'm going to say about that.

HP are too expensive and NEC are insanely expensive (as are the other full-on professional monitors). LG announced just the other day two new 21.5" and 23" IPS monitors will be coming out in November but they're LED models and so will be too expensive too. And that's about it, as far as I can tell...

Samsung or Dell...

and...

Out of curiosity I just went to the UK Dell site (which has a crap layout btw, and no I don't want to take part in a survey), to see if they had the same monitors I found on my local Dell site, and saw the prices. I hope I don't sound patronizing, but I didn't realize how bad you guys are getting ripped off over there. Computer parts over here are generally subject to mark ups that are highly dubious IMO, but even so, doing a straight currency conversion, the U2211H (21.5") should cost 186GBP, not 292GBP (106GBP difference), and the U2311H (23") should cost 217GBP, not 351GBP (134GBP difference), with a 31GBP difference between the two models, not a 59GBP difference. Converting back the other way and seeing thsoe prices in my local currency, I'm not sure I'd want to pay those prices. Sort of puts a damper on the whole thing. As Blackdog said, it's probably a good idea to shop around and try to get those prices down.

It is worth it to have a good monitor though IMO.

Anyway, hope that helps, was doing it for my own knowledge as much as anything.

The reason you get big price jumps from the 24" and up Dell models is probably that they use a different IPS subtype. The cheap, fast ones are the e-IPS panels, i guess the 24" is more of a "professional" one with slower response but better colour quality.

So, the new LG ones are LED-backlit, interesting....but if you look closer you'll see they are the same size as the Ultrasharps from Dell ;)

I guess it's the same thing that happened with my monitor model as well. LG sold e-IPS panels to Dell, then made a monitor of their own with the same panel and minimal differences (outside bezel, stand, etc). So i guess that the 21.5" and the 23" from LG will for all intents and purposes be the same monitors as the Dell Ultrasharp ones of the same size. This means you are getting more options for the same, proven panel, which is never a bad thing (ability to pick the cheaper one, or one with an added feature/connector/etc).

As for the mark-ups, when i bought the Dell 2209WA i had read in forums that people in the US and Canada could get it for $150 to $200, often calling a sales representative directly and achieving favorable prices (the only thing you needed was someone listed as a business owner with his IRS/social security/whatever-they-call-it-in-the-US code, since the monitor was considered "professional" and they only did discounts for businesses), since these guys were probably trying to get bonuses by making more sales. At that time's conversion rates, it was small change in Euros.

However, i couldn't order from the US for a variety of reasons (long shipping times, extra damage risk due to increased travel distance, i doubt anyone would ship to Europe, plus the shipping cost might equal the price difference from an EU-based dealer), so i got mine for about 250 Euros last year (converted from British pounds), shipping included, from a UK-based online shop. The monitor's listing price here in Greece? On the official Dell website, it was listed a full 100+ Euros higher, with a starting price of 359 Euros. Meaning, if i wanted to order it from a brick and mortar shop that would need to make some profit on the sale and not directly from Dell's local dealers, it could easily climb up to 400 Euros :-P

Les

11-05-2010, 03:51 PM

The reason you get big price jumps from the 24" and up Dell models is probably that they use a different IPS subtype.

So, the new LG ones are LED-backlit, interesting....but if you look closer you'll see they are the same size as the Ultrasharps from Dell ;)

As for the mark-ups...I couldn't order from the US for a variety of reasons...

Yeah, the 24" Dells are 1920x1200, so using a different kind of screen.

Interesting about the new LG/Dell similarities, you could well be right about their being the same basic screens.

Dell states in their fine-print something about sales restrictions between countries, so like a lot of companies, you can only buy them where they want you to. I don't really want to get into that whole subject, sufficed to say they've got it covered, as in the end it wouldn't be worth it to get around their restrictions.

I got a good price for my monitor just by chance, as they were being cleared out as end-of-line stock for several hundred dollars off their normal price. I couldn't resist that, even though it was still expensive, and I don't regret it at all. Don't know what I'd do now if I were looking for monitors, but I'd definitely be considering the Samsung B2440L.

Anyway, I've said my bit, enjoy whatever you've got, or get.