What Srceen Recommendations for IL2/gaming

[brando]

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]

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...

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

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).

Originally Posted by Chivas

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]

Originally Posted by kgwanchos

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ytareh

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]

Originally Posted by brando

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]

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]

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]

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
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.