rec.autos.simulators

Check this out...

PlowBo

Check this out...

by PlowBo » Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:49:28

Not ready to game monitor, or is it?

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

I know there are guys who used to post here, have money to burn, sure hope
they try it and post back <G>

Tony Rickar

Check this out...

by Tony Rickar » Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:22:09


> Not ready to game monitor, or is it?

> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/radius-320-seamless-display-lo...

> I know there are guys who used to post here, have money to burn, sure hope
> they try it and post back <G>

According to their UK reseller: "Anticipated list price 9,750 exc
delivery and VAT"...

Ouch!

jwilson5

Check this out...

by jwilson5 » Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:06:49



>> Not ready to game monitor, or is it?

>> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>> I know there are guys who used to post here, have money to burn, sure
>> hope they try it and post back <G>

> According to their UK reseller: "Anticipated list price 9,750 exc
> delivery and VAT"...

> Ouch!

And 16ms response wont cut it for ***
redTe

Check this out...

by redTe » Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:38:42

Of course it will. But for that price I'd want much lower response times.

PlowBo

Check this out...

by PlowBo » Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:06:50

Ya All know that response time is as accurate a marketing tool as the good
old diagonal measurement of CRTs in the 90's right?  there is grey to grey
or on and of response times, and thes can be manipulated by vendors to suit
whatever they want you to think, it seems.  I read where a good 16ms on one
panel is better than 4ms on others now that they all lie anyway.  Back in
the 80's and 90's we had a saying about the computer industry... "What is
the difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman?"  Answer:
"the Car salesman knows he is lying to you"

redTed enlightened us with:

scot

Check this out...

by scot » Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:22:57


> Ya All know that response time is as accurate a marketing tool as the
> good old diagonal measurement of CRTs in the 90's right?  there is
> grey to grey or on and of response times, and thes can be manipulated
> by vendors to suit whatever they want you to think, it seems.  I read
> where a good 16ms on one panel is better than 4ms on others now that
> they all lie anyway.

Couldn't agree with you more, if you are really worried about fast response
times then actually get infront of the monitor and test it.  Comparing a
single number from a website is totally pointless, there are far too many
ways they can wangle out any number they like for the "response time".
redTe

Check this out...

by redTe » Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:19:05


As I owned an LG with 16ms response for a couple of years, I know how well
it handles all sorts of games.
Personally I look for sharp contrast ratios along with low response times.
Then a demo of the actual monitor if possible.
Sometimes the supplied tech stats are all you can use to make up your mind.
Especially when ordering stuff over the 'net.
If, and I'm sure you are right, sales ppl twist figures to suit, who the
*** knows what we're being sold ?

Trev

Check this out...

by Trev » Sun, 03 Sep 2006 19:39:43




>>> Not ready to game monitor, or is it?

>>> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>>> I know there are guys who used to post here, have money to burn, sure
>>> hope they try it and post back <G>

>> According to their UK reseller: "Anticipated list price 9,750 exc
>> delivery and VAT"...

>> Ouch!

> And 16ms response wont cut it for ***

Yes it will.
Villanov

Check this out...

by Villanov » Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:35:21



Track IR does a better job for games, for nearly $9000 less.

Tony Rickar

Check this out...

by Tony Rickar » Mon, 04 Sep 2006 18:55:06




>> Not ready to game monitor, or is it?

>> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>> I know there are guys who used to post here, have money to burn, sure hope
>> they try it and post back <G>

> Track IR does a better job for games, for nearly $9000 less.

I don't agree it does a better job, but certainly better value!

The advantage of three screen *** is it allows you to look left and
right whilst still retaining your peripheral view straight ahead as in
real life. Similarly it allows the right and left views to sit in your
peripheral vision.

I am sure it varies from person to person but I simply can't cope with
any form of variable view in front of me - including look to apex type
views. I need the real life fixed view of straight ahead and then the
ability to have additional rather than alternative views right and left.

I guess it maybe because I have been sim racing for over 15 years and
you know what they say about teaching old dogs new tricks...

Cheers
Tony

==--=

Check this out...

by ==--= » Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:33:11

any form of variable view in front of me - including look to apex type
views. <<

ME TOO!
I can't seem to keep the car on the track if I look left or right longer
than a millisecond!
I can't wait for 3 screen systems to become 'affordable'.

==--==





>>> Not ready to game monitor, or is it?

>>> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

>>> I know there are guys who used to post here, have money to burn, sure
>>> hope they try it and post back <G>
>> Track IR does a better job for games, for nearly $9000 less.

> I don't agree it does a better job, but certainly better value!

> The advantage of three screen *** is it allows you to look left and
> right whilst still retaining your peripheral view straight ahead as in
> real life. Similarly it allows the right and left views to sit in your
> peripheral vision.

> I am sure it varies from person to person but I simply can't cope with any
> form of variable view in front of me - including look to apex type views.
> I need the real life fixed view of straight ahead and then the ability to
> have additional rather than alternative views right and left.

> I guess it maybe because I have been sim racing for over 15 years and you
> know what they say about teaching old dogs new tricks...

> Cheers
> Tony

Andrew MacPhers

Check this out...

by Andrew MacPhers » Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:57:00


> I can't seem to keep the car on the track if I look left or right
> longer than a millisecond!

Agreed, glancing either side is very disruptive indeed. And despite
spending too much money on a TIR1 and eventually a TIR4 (because I could
see the potential even if I didn't enjoying using the TIR1) I find them
impossible to use for racing... perhaps because of many years of
associating the screen view with the direction of travel.

The TIR's a bit better for flight sims, as steering isn't such a twitchy
big deal, and I'm used to having to look around with joystick hats. But
I still find the experience pretty disorientating.

Andrew McP

==--=

Check this out...

by ==--= » Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:14:06

Copy that   :)
5 by 5



>> I can't seem to keep the car on the track if I look left or right
>> longer than a millisecond!

> Agreed, glancing either side is very disruptive indeed. And despite
> spending too much money on a TIR1 and eventually a TIR4 (because I could
> see the potential even if I didn't enjoying using the TIR1) I find them
> impossible to use for racing... perhaps because of many years of
> associating the screen view with the direction of travel.

> The TIR's a bit better for flight sims, as steering isn't such a twitchy
> big deal, and I'm used to having to look around with joystick hats. But
> I still find the experience pretty disorientating.

> Andrew McP


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.