Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

24 or 27 inch

pocahaunted

Arcane
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,017
Location
Pyongyang, Best Korea
As other have stated, getting an IPS monitor is probably the most important aspect.

I personally own a 24" screen and don't feel the need to upgrade since I use it in tandem with a 40" HDTV, as my second monitor. That being said, I wouldn't mind trying a dual 27" setup.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
commie said:
Turisas said:
sea said:
As for 16:9 vs. 16:10... 16:10 gives more vertical space for desktop use, but most games and movies are made for 16:9 and so don't play well with 16:10. It's worth noting that with most games, you will see less of the screen at 16:10 than 16:9, and that many games, due to being designed around 16:9, don't play so well with 16:10, featuring graphic anomalies like HUD stretching etc. If you're primarily a gamer I would say get a 16:9 screen, while if you want something better for straight desktop use, 16:10 makes a bit more sense.

Jealous 16:9 user talk. :smug:

Nonsense that it'd be "most" games that suffer from those - if all you're playing is straight console ports, you're not a PC gamer anyway.

Always funny to read about the 16:9 v 16:10 debate when everyone knows that all the good games are for 4:3.

Honestly, I agree, I made a post about this recently in another thread that when widescreen was coming in I thought it was going to be fantastic for games, especially FPS, but in the end it's just plain bad for RTS and FPS has seen no benefit at all as we were already using 90+ degree FOV anyway and that has not changed at all, all we have done is narrowed our vertical FOV. Wish I'd got the 4:3 version four years ago when I bought the 20" wide 2007WFP I use today. It is better for watching TV shows and movies at least. And comics, when rotated 90 degrees.
 

AlaCarcuss

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,335
Location
BrizVegas, Australis Penal Colony
abija said:
Personally, I'd go for a 120hz display over IPS for gaming. Apart from the ability to do 3D on them (which is not for me), the refresh rate brings the panel up to CRT standard and is noticeably smoother and easier on the eyes than std 60hz panels. Be warned though, once you've used one for gaming, you can never go back.
The refresh requirement for CRT has nothing to do with LCD and that high value it's only beneficial if you play shooters and your rig is cruising at 120fps.

By "brings it up to CRT standard" I meant in terms of the smoothness and fluidity of the action.

And any FPS over and above 60 is noticeably smoother at 120hz - not only @ 120FPS. Also I call bullshit on "only benificial if you play shooters" - why? - any game that your video card/s allow you to play at 60+ FPS looks and feels much nicer. Even general desktop windows use is better.

Of course, playing a game at the ideal 120FPS @ 120hz (vsync) with 2ms response and virtually 0 input lag has to be experienced (I have a pair of 6970's - so this usually isn't a problem). As I said, you'll never want to go back.
 

DwarvenFood

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
6,408
Location
Atlantic Accelerator
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Codex USB, 2014 Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
commie said:
Turisas said:
sea said:
As for 16:9 vs. 16:10... 16:10 gives more vertical space for desktop use, but most games and movies are made for 16:9 and so don't play well with 16:10. It's worth noting that with most games, you will see less of the screen at 16:10 than 16:9, and that many games, due to being designed around 16:9, don't play so well with 16:10, featuring graphic anomalies like HUD stretching etc. If you're primarily a gamer I would say get a 16:9 screen, while if you want something better for straight desktop use, 16:10 makes a bit more sense.

Jealous 16:9 user talk. :smug:

Nonsense that it'd be "most" games that suffer from those - if all you're playing is straight console ports, you're not a PC gamer anyway.

Always funny to read about the 16:9 v 16:10 debate when everyone knows that all the good games are for 4:3.

Modern 4:3 monitors are crazy expensive though. Also, pro-tip: move thread to tech library.
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
The only real "problem" with 120hz displays is that you need higher framerates, which means more strain on your video card, more power consumption, and ultimately more money spent on better hardware. I would love a solid 120hz but I realize I can't get that on my system with all games, so the extra refresh is kind of wasted. Framerate fluctuations would drive me insane.
 
Repressed Homosexual
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
17,867
Location
Ottawa, Can.
What, color reproduction quality doesn't matter for games? Are you serious? It's huge and makes all the difference, it's so much more pleasing to look at. I never want to play a game on a non-IPS monitor ever again.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
Most of the new cheap eIPS panels are 6-bit + dithering/frame rate control just like the TN panels.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,308
sea said:
The only real "problem" with 120hz displays is that you need higher framerates, which means more strain on your video card, more power consumption, and ultimately more money spent on better hardware.

Why? Does a game that runs only at 50-60 FPS on a 120Hz display feels worse than it would when played at 60Hz display? If no, I don't see a problem, let some games run below 120 FPS and still have full 120 for older/less stressful games. And higher refresh rate should still be easier on the eyes no matter what framerate the game is running at.
Of course, I never tried 120Hz LCD screen so I might be talking out of my ass, but I do remember not going for max resolutions on my old CRT just so I could feel those 150Hz.
 

mikaelis

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,436
Location
Land of Danes
Codex 2013 Codex 2014
Thanks guys, huge imput. I went for 27 inch as I will probably be sitting a bit further away from the screen. And I want to use it as a TV replacement for watching movies and TV as well. Anyway, I still have laptop for Office applications etc.
Who knows, maybe in the future I will even go full retard and connect the console to it, so I can merrily twitch and pop :troll:
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
Multidirectional said:
Why? Does a game that runs only at 50-60 FPS on a 120Hz display feels worse than it would when played at 60Hz display? If no, I don't see a problem, let some games run below 120 FPS and still have full 120 for older/less stressful games. And higher refresh rate should still be easier on the eyes no matter what framerate the game is running at.
Of course, I never tried 120Hz LCD screen so I might be talking out of my ass, but I do remember not going for max resolutions on my old CRT just so I could feel those 150Hz.
The difference between 60 and 120 on a 120 hz display is as noticeable as the difference between 30 and 60 on a 60 hz display. The gameplay impact is smaller, but the fluctuations in fluidity are still there. Most games also don't have a reasonable way to limit framerate, and v-sync won't help you much to keep a specific framerate either.
 

mikaelis

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,436
Location
Land of Danes
Codex 2013 Codex 2014
Destroid said:
So... what model did you get?

IIYAMA 2773 HDS for 220 GBP. It's been already a stretch as I was not planning to spend more than 170-180. I can still bring it back if I don't like it, but I guess I will find a hard time searching for something with much better visual quality with this price range and 27 inch.
 

Twinkle

Liturgist
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
1,426
Location
Lands of Entitlement
praetor said:
Destroid said:
Well, whatever you decide to do, take a look at the reviews from tftcentral.co.uk they are very comprehensive.

+1. best monitor review site around

Prad.de is pretty good too if you can into krautspeak. Even if you are not the numbers speak for themselves.

The next Nvidia driver will have a global framerate limiter

For now you can use DXtory which is the best video capture software around, way superior to Fraps in terms of functionality and customization and roughly on par in performance. On the downside its developer is from Japan so documentation and support are pretty poor, and the "free" version is harder to find.
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
Ruprekt said:
sea said:
Most games also don't have a reasonable way to limit framerate

The next Nvidia driver will have a global framerate limiter :thumbsup:
That's what they said two drivers ago. :(
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Multidirectional said:
Why? Does a game that runs only at 50-60 FPS on a 120Hz display feels worse than it would when played at 60Hz display?
Placebo effect. You believe it should feel worse, so it does. In practice, many games run at an internal frame rate of only 30-ish FPS anyway. This means that drawing 60 frames is simply drawing the same frame twice, as nothing has actually changed between the two frames because the game itself only processes updates at 30 FPS. It doesn't really matter how many frames you get if the frames are the SAME frames.

For instance, a classic example, Diablo II, has an internal clockrate of 20 frames per second. Nothing in the game happens faster than that, and this is a well known fact. Nonetheless, weirdos swear by the alleged benefits of higher frame rates, even though this is physically impossible because nothing in the game can happen faster than 20 fps.
 

AlaCarcuss

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,335
Location
BrizVegas, Australis Penal Colony
Norfleet said:
Multidirectional said:
Why? Does a game that runs only at 50-60 FPS on a 120Hz display feels worse than it would when played at 60Hz display?
Placebo effect. You believe it should feel worse, so it does. In practice, many games run at an internal frame rate of only 30-ish FPS anyway. This means that drawing 60 frames is simply drawing the same frame twice, as nothing has actually changed between the two frames because the game itself only processes updates at 30 FPS. It doesn't really matter how many frames you get if the frames are the SAME frames.

For instance, a classic example, Diablo II, has an internal clockrate of 20 frames per second. Nothing in the game happens faster than that, and this is a well known fact. Nonetheless, weirdos swear by the alleged benefits of higher frame rates, even though this is physically impossible because nothing in the game can happen faster than 20 fps.

Well I have both a 23" IPS monitor @ 60hz and a 23" 3D monitor @ 120hz and all I can say is modern games (not decade old 2D games) look and play far FAR smoother @ 120hz - so long as you can maintain frame rates above 60. The difference is quite remarkable actually and the closer you get to the magic 120FPS the better it gets.

Humanity has risen! said:
What, color reproduction quality doesn't matter for games? Are you serious? It's huge and makes all the difference, it's so much more pleasing to look at. I never want to play a game on a non-IPS monitor ever again.

I can run these side by side in the same game and honestly - when both are correctly calibrated the difference is negligible. Anyway, how the fuck in a game do you know what the "correct" colours are anyway? It's not like they use Pantone or any such....
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,308
sea said:
The difference between 60 and 120 on a 120 hz display is as noticeable as the difference between 30 and 60 on a 60 hz display.

Wow, if that is correct than refresh rates on LCD screens are very different from CRT's, cause running at 150Hz I could notice very little difference, if at all, when going above 60FPS, yet difference between 30 and 60 was very noticeable.
I'd still be somewhat inclined to believe a guy who said it's a placebo effect, but of course I can't be sure until I tried it myself.
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
It's worth pointing out that sensitivity to framerates is a very subjective thing. I remember that after the luster of my first LCD wore off, I realized that my 60 hz limit was noticeably less smooth than the 85 hz of my CRT, and while I haven't used a 120 hz display personally (I have seen 120 hz TVs etc. in stores), I can only imagine the difference extends upwards. Meanwhile some people insist they can't see the difference above 30 fps.

As for "internal framerates", most games will run as quickly as they can, though there are exceptions, like most Unreal Engine 3 games, which have a 62 fps limit by default. Most 2D games run at 20-30 fps, but of course I'm also not deluded into thinking that running Diablo 3 on super-high-end hardware is going to grant me some sort of weird advantage.
 

DwarvenFood

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
6,408
Location
Atlantic Accelerator
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Codex USB, 2014 Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Azrael the cat said:
Ever had that experience where you click on a topic and find out that it isn't what you expected from the title?

So I'm not the only one who thought at first this should have been posted in GD ? (before opening)
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
7,428
Location
Villainville
MCA
Destroid said:
all we have done is narrowed our vertical FOV.

FFS, not this bullshit again.

villain of the story said:
Here's a comparison of using a widescreen resolution on a letterbox screen and using a letterbox resolution on a widescreen, frames resized from 1600x1200, 1600x1000 and 1920x1200, 1600x1200, taken straight from TW1:

303fdko.jpg


2e5jwhz.jpg


Notice how you actually get a smaller image in the first.

villain of the story said:
I'll leave another example here and many more may come on demand, just because Kraszu is that special.

5cn3g2.jpg

2u7875c.jpg


But go on, keep deluding yourself about how this is also Crytek doing it wrong. I guess I can demonstrate a decade of games doing it wrong.

But just to entertain the idea that the "correct" way to do it would be to actually cut the image at top and bottom instead of scaling it to fit widescreen into 4:3, here is how it would look:

15i0011.jpg


And if you need explanation why that one is plain retarded, well that says something.

I have nothing against a preference for 4:3 or against widescreen but trying to justify it with inane bullshit is dumb-dumb area.

Your vertical FOV is fucking fine. You're only expanding on the horizontal FOV, which makes fucking sense to do.
 

CreamyBlood

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,392
I have to agree with Villain here. I don't see a loss of vertical view, the games are just giving you a wider field of vision.

I recently had my old faithful 21" CRT die and bought a new monitor under pressure and time constraints but it's okay (Ausus VE247h). 16:10's weren't around at a reasonable price. I got a 24" 16:9. The only bummer was that my physical vertical viewing experience went down from 12" to 11.5 inches. Yes, I measured it. It is wider though.

The bigger problem is these damn console games have such a pinched 'ingame' FOV that needs to be adjusted. We have wider monitors now but a narrower 'arc of vision'. In the old days I'm pretty sure Quake 3 or Enemy Territory defaulted at 90 degrees on a 4:3 monitor, now we have 75 degrees as default on a widescreen. I think I'd tweak mine up to around 95d or sometimes 100d but that could be considered cheating and you started getting a 'fishbowl' effect if you went much higher.

I've played FPS's all my life and can sit in front of a computer for 16-34 hours (depending on how much beer I have) but playing Metro on my Dads 120mhz gave me motion sickness, or something, I didn't get sick, just couldn't play for more than an hour (that has nothing to do with how boring and shitty it is).

When I started playing Deus Ex: HR the same thing started happening, then I found the 'in-game' setting that let me set it up to 100 (I tried 90 and still use it there). It made all the difference. I haven't bothered checking it out but it might be interesting to see if a screen shot shows you a different vertical resolution based on your FOV between 75 and 90, or if the interface gets stretched. I believe I read that Dead Space just chopped it and didn't scale properly, not sure about DX3.

At least it made the game playable for me. Not some cramped motion sickness inducing headache machine. I understand the theory behind doing that, is that the old console hardware can't draw as much but since it's assumed that you're on a couch on a big TV a few meters away it wont give you a headache, and of course kids don't know better but on a computer an FOV of 75 is painfull to some people.

Xi said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005234

IPS/LED 23 Inch monitor. $239.99

Something like this is just fine.

Aren't you the guy that thinks streaming games over YouTube is okay?

Anyways, I would never buy an 8ms response time monitor, but I sometimes play FPS's. I thought it was a bad recommendation.

It looks like the OP got a good 27" monitor for his money, maybe he'll tell us about it when he plays a few things.

My opinion is that I got a 24" under emergency conditions but think I should have spent a few more bucks and got the 27". A good game gets you absorbed yet it would be nice to just perfectly fill your vision with 'the game'.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
I use a 16ms monitor. :smug:


Does Battlefield 3 allow you to set a wider FOV when running in a widescreen resolution?

EDIT: Ok I did some investigating rather than imagining and apparently most modern games use a system of vertical FOV, which will grant wider monitors a bigger FOV for any given setting. From what I am reading the opposite system used to be the trend.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom