![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Sean McCarney" wrote in message
... Budget no problem (wife's approval obtained!) DVI input wanted, resolution 1025x768 minimum (but all I have is a 15 inch CRT so maybe a higher res would be better - advice accepted!). IMHO, if budget is no problem, go for a high-end one. ![]() LCD monitor will be an improvement over your current CRT. What I have been concerned about is the refresh/update rate which according to the PC Mags is the decideing factor in order to avoid blurring on games. Lots of people have said LCD's are terrible for games because of the low refresh rates and image latency. I guess that's subjective, but LCD's are pretty good these days, and I think games look great on them. The VS2000 has a response time of 25 ms, which is a little longer than the 17 ms it takes to show a frame at 60 Hz (the refresh rate of pretty much every LCD monitor), but whatever blurring is present isn't noticeable to me. If anything, the smearing is just enough to smooth out the image a bit, which in MSFS makes the view look a little more realistic. The VX2000 is 1600x1200 which is, IMHO, much nicer for games than 1024x768. However, you'll need suitable hardware to get decent framerates at that resolution. But the latest generation or so of PCs and video cards should be able to handle that just fine. Samsung also makes some nice high-res LCD monitors. Some are actually in their "multi-function" line, which means they also have S-video and composite inputs, among other things. Their SyncMaster 241MP has a 16:9 aspect ratio, with 1920x1200 resolution. I've always thought a wide-screen monitor would be good for games. Though, many games don't support wide-screen formats anyway, so it's kind of hit-and-miss. If you want to go with the safer 4:3 aspect ratio, their SyncMaster 211MP is basically the same, but with a 1600x1200 resolution instead. For just a straight computer monitor, the 240T is their 1920x1200 widescreen monitor, while their 210T and 213T monitors are 1600x1200. I haven't actually used the Samsungs, so I can only really recommend the Viewsonic. Actually, the Viewsonic has slightly better contrast than the Samsung monitors do, but I don't know how significant that is. By the way, I did a quick Google search, and came across this article: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1 It has a really great summary of the various pros and cons for LCD monitors that I think anyone who hasn't used one yet ought to read before buying one. In particular, they mention a couple of the big issues with LCD monitors: running at any resolution other than the monitor's "native" resolution won't look very good (don't bother with an LCD monitor unless either a) you need the desktop space, or b) you are prepared to run as much of your software as possible at just the one resolution; also, there are almost always a handful of "bad pixels" (monitor manufacturers and/or retailers usually have some maximum number of bad pixels that they consider acceptable, and unless the number exceeds that limit, you can't return the monitor simply because of bad pixels). Anyway, I hope that general information is useful. I bought the Viewsonic because of its excellent performance specifications (low response time, high contrast) and relatively good price (it was the least-expensive 1600x1200 LCD I could find at the time). I'm extremely happy with it, and think games play great on it (I've played all sorts using it: MSFS of course, Combat Flight Sim, Neverwinter Nights, Asheron's Call, Rise of Nations, MechWarrior, Half Life, just to name a few). The only gotcha was that I live in what might be considered a high-RF-interference area (a block away from an AM radio station) and it interferes with the touch-sensitive buttons that control the monitor. But most people wouldn't have to worry about that. There are, of course, numerous other manufacturers selling LCD monitors. Sony, NEC, Gateway, Dell, among others. I recommend 1600x1200 resolution, but if you're willing to go with a 1280x1024 or 1024x768, those are still significantly less expensive right now. But since budget's not a problem, you'll probably want to go with one of the high-resolution displays. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|