Hi there,
informing myself about a new TFT-Screen in hardware-bulletin-boards I stumbled upon the comment that TFTs can’t really handle/display “fast” games, e.g. in Quake 3 it comes to blurry- and ghost-images. I can’t check this on my System because I’m only on an old 17" CRT and never played on a TFT so i have no experience with that.
Is this true? And if, will it affect the ET:QW gameplay?
You’re talking about LCD monitors and their ability to refresh fast enough to keep up with the action. I have a Dell FP with a response time of around 12 ms and it plays just fine at 100+ FPS. Not sure what the maximum response time you’d want would be.
I run W:ET on a 19" TFT screen. Haven’t seen it go blurry at all.
How fast is QW compared to ET?
12ms is a LOT of delay for games. The new LCD-screens har down to 3ms in delay.
Ghosting is very obious at 12ms for most people.
This is a limitation in the technology and not something game-developers can do anything about.
No, its fine: approx. 83 frame per second.
For example: Quake 4 (1.3) have max fps = 60.
The new LCD-screens har down to 3ms in delay.
Hahaha.
Thats not true.
Ghosting is very obious at 12ms for most people.
Its a very good (true) responsible time for LCD monitor.
I play Quake 3 every day on 12ms and dont see any “ghost” or “blure”.
This is a limitation in the technology and not something game-developers can do anything about.
Yeah, but for new monitors (< true 12ms) it is not a problem.
I have a 19" LCD With a respons time of 8ms, i really love it :evil:
No, its fine: approx. 83 frame per second.
For example: Quake 4 (1.3) have max fps = 60.
[/quote]
No, it’s not fine. You cannot count time vs imaginary fps and proclaim that beause you don’t miss a frame you aren’t feeling delay. It just isn’t true.
Response-time of 2ms.
I will accept your appology.
Good for you?
Many of us do however.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/speccontent.htm#response%20time
(See the animated pics for reference what ghosting is.)
Response-time of 2ms.
2ms is just a number (or gray-to-gray time), not real responce time.
All of TN monitors (<$500) have a 8ms responce time.
IPS and MVA (new) monitors have even greater responce time (12-25 ms).
25 ms is a too long, I agreed, but 12 ms plays very well.
(min 83 clean frames per second)
From your link
Different manufacturers have different ways of measuring their response time, and one 8ms panel might not be the same in real use to another 8ms panel for instance.
Response time is measured as the rise time (tR) and fall time (tF) of a pixel as it changes black > white > black. This is effectively the time it takes to change a pixel from one colour to another and the total ‘response time’ is quoted as the total of the tR + tF. Be wary of the figures manufacturers quote, as sometimes the ‘response time’ can be quoted as just the rise time, and not the total response time.
Zarkow is correct, but it should also be noted that the perceived “ghosting” is individual (some people are more sensitive to this than others), and that the gray to gray response time given by the manufacturer isn’t the whole truth (see the tftcentral link).
Best way is to go to a store and try out a couple and see which one best meets your visual needs and budget constraints
Agree with Zarkow, I have a highend LCD and a highend CRT. The crt is just so much better to play on 
As sauron said its down to individual perception - some people can play fine on a 25ms panel and never “see” any ghosting, and the game you play makes a big difference too…
So far I’ve not found a TFT display that does not ghost/blurr at all and for me even 2ms displays are barely acceptable for ET/DOD:S and not really good enough for quake 3.
Anyone who says their 5/8/12ms panel isn’t blurring/ghosting and perfectly fine for a game like quake 3 is probably a casual gamer and just not noticing the stuff that a more dedicated gamer with finer tuned senses will notice.
only problem is that tft is slow. but thats so little. i see no difference between them. btw when usin tft make shure u got DVI connection with it. otherwise its just a waste of hardware
in theory DVI gives you a faster, cleaner image than VGA in practise there is very very little in it except the image using DVI as input will normally be very slightly but perceptibly more vibrant…
Using pixperan I can detect no difference in the amount of blurring present on a TFT display using either VGA or DVI despite what some people say and I’ve tested this on a number of panels… pixperan also shows quite plainly how far even a 2ms TFT display is from the blurr free image on a CRT.
I thought monitors were limited to display a certain number of frames depending on their vertical refresh rate :?
Let’s say an LCD monitor is only capable of handling resolutions @ 60Hz. If the game allows it, you may as well cap the rendering at 60 fps and you won’t notice the difference.
I thought monitors were limited to display a certain number of frames depending on their vertical refresh rate :?
Let’s say an LCD monitor is only capable of handling resolutions @ 60Hz. If the game allows it, you may as well cap the rendering at 60 fps and you won’t notice the difference.[/quote]
The delay has nothing to do with refresh-rate. His argument was therefor not based on reality.
And btw, D3, Q4 and most likely ET:QW will be capped at 60fps.
I have that LCD myself and have absolutely no problem with it at all. No ghosting, no tearing or anything and movement doesn’t feel delayed or anything like that. Actually that was my biggest fear before I bought it, but it hasn’t let me down so far.
But as Sauron said, perceived ghosting is individual, thankfully I’m not seing any with this LCD anyway.
well… i dont want QW engine-capped FPS. i prefer config based cap (com_maxfps =] )