Will TFT-Screens properly display ET:QW?

(SCDS_reyalP) #21

FWIW, if you think your LCD doesn’t have any ghosting issues try Pixel Persistence Analyzer here http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_monitor.html

Note that you can have a quite slow LCD and still be able to play. As others have pointed out, how much it bothers people seems to depend a lot on the individual.

I have an “8ms” and can easily see the blurring if I strafe close to a detailed texture for example.

There is also fairly strong evidence that many LCDs introduce a delay completely independent of the response time: http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-1/lcds-images-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html

edit:
of course, in response to the original post, there is absolutely nothing et:qw can do to influence any of these things.

(zeh) #22

As per the latest beta patch, Q4 now has server-configurable maxticks/fps (defaults to 60, but can be higher).

(Zarkow) #23

But per dev-response to that on irc, I would say you cannot do that in ET:QW. Not right now anyway.

(You are just rendering the same frame again anyway.)

But that is slightly offtopic.

(Dima) #24

even a 2ms TFT display

They does not exist!
It is not a true (black-white-black) responcible time!

I thought monitors were limited to display a certain number of frames depending on their vertical refresh rate

Yeah, but limited refresh rate and fps cap - comlitely different things.

And btw, D3, Q4 and most likely ET:QW will be capped at 60fps.

Quake 4 1.4 hasnt.

is probably a casual gamer

Peoples says that they have LCD monitor with 2ms (or 5ms) responcible time probably doesnt know what they says.
12 ms (NEC 20 WGX2, AS-IPS, and 6ms gray-to-gray) plays pretty well.
Yes its have little ghosting, but its not critical fot non-progamers.

(Zarkow) #25

Please post your proof that back that statement up.

Btw:

Before:

Now:

It goes forward.

(Dima) #26

Please post your proof that back that statement up.

I already quoted text from your link.
2ms isnt true respincible time.

It goes forward.

Little blure that I dont see.

(Dima) #27

A figure of 8 to 16 ms for rise + fall times is typical. The response time was traditionally recorded at the full black > white transition which became the ISO standard for this specification on LCD displays. Grey transitions are far more common in practice but in terms of pixel latency, they remained significantly behind the ISO transition. In recent years there have been a wide range of Response Time Compensation (RTC) / overdrive technologies introduced which have allowed panel manufacturers to significantly reduce grey transitions. Response times are now commonly quoted in “G2G” figures and specs of 6ms, 4ms and 2ms G2G are widely available.

Questions?

(Zarkow) #28

You must be confused: It clearly states that the 2ms TFT LCD screens exists. That the number is reached using another measuring-technique doesn’t invalidate that the numbering exists - and as such is the number we most likely will be seeing when we are going to purchase the monitors. My next will most likely be a CRT, but who knows…

(Dima) #29

I mean true responce time, not g2g.

(Smooth) #30

Manufacturer listed response times have very little in common with the actual response times.

Even the Viewsonic VX922 (which is the best for gaming imo) is listed at 2ms but in reality it averages at about 7-8ms.

A TRUE response time of 10-12ms or less will be fine for FPS gaming.

(Loffy) #31

Getting the perfect system is not necessarily a good thing. How can I whine, if I sit with optimal equipment?

(WEARESURROUNDED!) #32

So its the same TFT vs. CRT battle as in the board where i found this statement, interesting. ^^
May a developer could give us a hint what they prefer when testing QW?
:poke:

(ayatollah) #33

Its all a matter of personal choice. Probably the best shooter in our clan has a top-of-the-range TFT but he wants to buy a CRT for the very reason of “ghosting”. I have never experienced “ghosting” myself and would prefer to stick to my slimline TFT.

(Maybe thats why the best shooter in our clan is the best. Better perception?)

(kamikazee) #34

For gaming, I’d say CRT.
For developing, nothing beats a dual TFT setup. (Except a triple or n-screen setup.)

(]UBC[ McNite) #35

The only problem with CRTs is that you don’t get them anymore… I wanted a 22" CRT by iiyama (got a 19" iiyama, its 5 years old now and still very cool) but iiyama took them off their list of products.

(d0m1n0) #36

I compete at the CAL-I level in a certain game and use a 20" NEC 20GX2. It has a 2 ms IPS response time (granted it’s expensive) and is perfectly fine for gaming. There’s no such thing as ghosting with this… the worst I get is a bit of tearing from time to time. I couple it with a X6800 @ 3.6, so it’s hardly ever an issue.

Granted it gives me an advantage in viewing area than most players and I can see why this is considered an unfair advantage (it is) but those are the breaks.

As long as ET supports 1680X1050, I’ll be a happy camper.

(Dima) #37

No, it has 12 ms true responce time (AS-IPS matrix), and 6 ms g2g.
(I have NEC 20GX2 too).

(murka) #38

k it seems that some ppl whyne about ghosting but it is strange. gimme a person who can see ghosting on a… about 12ms panel. now that is 12/1000 seconds. now that is very hard to see. maybe u can see ghosting on 25ms panel. but its entirely ur choice. i have 17" panel 12ms. i never whyne. played big games and i dont see any ghosting afaik.

(M8DNanite) #39

I see tiny white “ghosting” or shadow in this 4ms Viewsonic. But doesnt bother me at all.

But like reyalP noted there is also delay on most lcd panels. HW sites has to start measure this too in reviews.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-2/lcds-images-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html

If you dont understand that article let me ask other way: Do you wanna have 15 - 26ms more ping/lag/latency?

(Joe999) #40

i think of getting the samsung syncmaster 226bw. anyone here who has it and/or can say sth about it?