I'm curious what people are using these days, after seeing TFT's being used for FPS games at EC11. Are CPL going to move to TFT's next year? I'd imagine there's strong pressure from their sponsors to use TFT technology.
My BenQ 937s+ works just fine. Noticed a difference when I switch from my Trinitron 19", but now it's just fine. Play both Q3 and HL2DM pretty good on it. Notice that it's an LCD more in Q3 of course due to higher and more stable FPS.
TFT's have come a long way for gaming, I have a hyunday l90d+(lcd) along with a viewsonic p95f+(crt) and when I got this lcd I got it for the purpose of gaming on it. During the time I was playing a lot of cpma and I really didn't notice ghosting I would notice with lcds in the past, and after a couple months I got totally used to it, it was easy on the eyes and I didn't feel like there was any ghosting or jitteryness until i played cpma on a crt again. The picture brightness and contrast on my lcd is 5x better than the picture on my crt, but the max 75hz refresh rate on the lcd makes it feel cheap.
Wouldn't be a good thing for CPL to use TFTs but it wouldn't be terrible, would just give a few weak players headaches when they try to adapt to lower refresh rate.
Is that an absolute concrete fact though Sujoy? I ask because a friend is selling a very decent TFT at a very decent price. Thing is the native resolution is 1280x1024 which my GC can handle within Windows, but that in games such as Q4 is way out of reach.
Better LCD's are very adept at scaling. My Viewsonic VX910 is 19", 12ms response time with a native resolution of 1280.
However, Q4 (or any game for that matter) can be played at 800x600 @ 85Hz, and you would *never* notice its being scaled at all - looks sharp. No ghosting either, at all. 85hz is great for gaming too, uber smooth. The diff between 85 and 120Hz is pretty negligible, but the difference between 60 and 85 is huge, so make sure the LCD is at least 85@ 800x600.
The only people who bleat about LCD's are die hard CRT users; most who buy a *good* gaming LCD never look back. Having to game at the native resolution is an 'urban myth' (as such) also.
Edit: Eating my own words now! Just bought iiyama 454 and its far superior for gaming than my TFT :) Just goes to show how getting used to something makes you biased.
0ms is impossible, but i know what you mean.
i have no facts but i was told that in school when i asked, i dunno how much the teacher knew though (datorhantering, lolkurs ;D)
Well, there are 4ms LCDs so I'm guessing your teacher is just making stuff up to not look clueless :P
Technically CRT monitors don't have response time I think. So you could say they are 0ms even though they aren't "any ms" as they dont have response time (instant).
Edited by BumbleBeeRick/melachi at 16:12 GMT, 19th Sep 2005
atm I'm forced to play on a TFT as I only got my notebook left (no more desktop PC), but it plain and simply said sucks for fps such as Q3. At home I used to play on a 19" CRT with 120Hz, and it's so way way way way way much better than any TFT I've ever seen. It became better when I started to use the default resolution (1280x800) in games too, but still it's not even close to the comfy quality of any CRT I guess (for fast games like fps that is).
Also so far I've only heard complains of gamers whenever they were forced to play on TFTs so I guess it's not just the TFTs I got my hands on but a problem in general as big tournaments are supposed to have the brand new and best stuff from their sponsors, right?
Well I can only tell what I've experienced myself (and what most competitive gamers seem to think too), so far every TFT I got my hands on was pretty much 'not great' for gaming.
CRT, CRT!
A good TFT monitor is still a lot of $$$ for students ;(
I bought a 2nd hand 21" Cornerstone p1500 CRT last year, never want anything smaller now.
TFT monitors are FAR behind CRT:s in fast paced FPS such as Quake 3, and Quake 4 seems to be a faster game. In close combat the entire scene moves too fast for the TFT to keep up, and I find precise flick shots alot more difficult.
The lower refresh rate is just unbearable. It's so flickery your eyes are likely to die. Compared to a CRT / Quake3 / 125 Hz / Vsync enabled.. the diffrence is - to say the least - HUGE.
(On a side note - I've got an highend 19" CRT)
However, if I didn't play Quake, I'd like to have a TFT. For regular computer use (surfing, IRC, (porn? -_-), etc) they are really easy on your eyes, take up less desktop space, less power consumption...
i think he is talking about ingame when a game runs at say 125fps and the monitor 60/75hz the gfx will tear/flicker especially without vsync(wich would cap the fps@hz)
Id just add here that the intension for EC was to have CRT, but I was told by the cowworks guys that its almost impossible to source a bulk lot of CRT's these days as so few are mass making them.
In the states at quakecon they had CRT and TFT mixed in, though in the players area it was only CRT from what I remember.
Certainly these news "thinner" CRT's could be the perfect answer between space saving/weight saving and perfect imaging in FPS games.
I have tried a 4ms samsung TFT and sent it back after 3 days because it was ghosting so badly, particularly in faster FPS games such Q3 and UT/UT2004. In CS:S and BF2 for instance it was much better than the CRT.
In my experience -- the ghosting on LCDs is much less severe at its native resolution in DVI, or some lower multiple of its resolution in DVI (640x480 with nvidia drivers set to 'maintain aspect ratio' mode as an example for my 1280x1024 lcd).
I have been playing on a 8ms sony somethingorother for a while now due to space restrictions, and while it is noticably slower than my CRT, it is not bad enough that I want to change back.
because they're both samsung so they probably used the same response time method. i bet i could find several so called 4ms response time lcd's, that don't respond as quick as several other 8ms lcd's (that is by using the same method to test response time).
I think what offo means is that the standards for reporting response times are so hazy that the actual ms time means very little in terms of real performance of the screen.
well the 4ms is black. the ones on the picture seemed anthrzitish... so possibly the 913 8ms one ? dunno, maybe different models depending on the country.
i own a Benq FP937 s 19" tft and havent got any problems in faster games. although going to lower resolutions than the native is sometimes a pain in the ass, but that depends on the game youre playing
I got a 19" ViewSonic UltraBrite E92f+ CRT monitor and it truly rox.
I have tried different TFT's at friends houses and so on but the feeling of playing q3 on a TFT is not the same.
Still I do want a TFT monitor but only for working issues and videoediting and such. And there should be dual vision on those TFT's aswell =D
I have both a 19" LCD screen and an ilyama 19" , when i use the tft screen for gaming my eyes start to water after about 15-20 mins , there is blurring and ghosting and a host of other things you dont expect from a screen (such as single lcd "pixels" doing there own thing) i have 0 problems with my crt at all and overall everything looks both more solid and easier on the eye.
nope, but it shows that you can play at or very close to the highest level on a tft, its just a case of gettng used to it
of course 120hz crt is much easier on the eyes, and more comfortable to play with, any competative advantage gained over tft ms lag/jerky gfx is clearly only very small
I switched to a 17" TFT with 16ms response time some 2 years ago and it was fine for Quake3 but when I started playing CSS it was useless.
I think the type of gfx the game is displaying has alot to do with how good the screen is - Q3 is nice and bright, CSS is a more modern "realistic" looking which didn't work too well on my TFT.
Anyway I switched back to CRT now and everything is sooo much better!!
That something is modern and more realistic has nothing to do with it though. HL2 runs just fine on my LCD. But it's a new 19" 8ms one, not a two year old 16ms one.
its so much better when surfing / working on tfts i dont mind them to be not as good as crts in gaming.
but current TFTs with amazingly low reaction times do the job pretty well!
I've been getting by quite happily on a 19inch hyundai imagequest l90D+ if im honest its better than the crt i had and having desk space again is welcome bonus
i switched over to an LCD spring of 2003. i got a hitachi cml 174, one of the first sub 20ms reponse screens. advertised as 16ms. anyway, yeah, it's really hard to adjust to FPS games at first, but you slowly get used to it. most people here complain about it so much because they went from CRT straight to LCD, and then immediately hated it and went back to CRT.
i stuck it out for a few months and all my skills came back and i didn't feel the need to go back to CRT. i am also interested in seeing what the latest-and-greatest LCDs look like for games. should be interesting.
I just got rid of my 17" CRT and got 3 19" 8ms TFT's, imo the TFT is no where near as good as my old CRT for gaming - the screen cant keep up with my fast movements :( but I will probably get used to it in time.
SED monitors are on their way and well the promises of the companies creating realy gives something to look forward to. It's gonna be as cheap as a crt / tft of today, while having a shorter reaction time as the crt while being able to show more fps on higher resolutions etc.
So if they can back up what they claim... around the same time next year everyone will have a SED monitor :P
TFT's just need a little getting used to, and most cant get used to it quick enough at lan events which is why they moan, it takes 1 to 2 days to get used to them i found which is far to long at a lan.
So make the switch or pay the price ! because tfts will be used at most tournaments in the future.