How are LCD Monitors for racing?

I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. Thanks!!!

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:59:44 -0400, "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had >experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. >Thanks!!! > > Don't have FIC yet, but GPL, F12002, NS2002, SBK2001 etc. are all fine on my LCD. You want a powerful video card to go along with that though because the native res is what you should be shooting for to run these games at, which on a 17" LCD is 1280x1024. I find games running at 800x600 or lower look like crap on my LCD due to the interpolation. 1024x768 and up looks good, but native res of course looks the best.

At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better or frame rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at 1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are capable of that.

"Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be34qm$og5k$[email hidden]... > At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better orframe > rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at > 1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it > runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are capableof > that. > > Not necessarily true, unless you measure a Radeon 9700 Pro and a GeForce 4 Ti4200 as comparable cards. First off, you're not saying what game you're playing. I have a LCD 18", and with my GF4 Ti200 FIC runs perfectly fine at 1280x1024x32. Now with Nascar 2003, I drop down a bit and never run the game in 32 bit, usually running in 1152x864. But even with most of the options on and running N2003 in 1280x1024x32 I get at least 40 fps, full field, in the back, with all cars drawn. I just prefer to get a bit higher so I run in a lower resolution. And of course the processor speed might have something to do with it, also. But I disagree with your opening statement-- and especially for F1C-- you don't need all you say you need (LCD). Alanb

What kinda refresh rates can u guys get on lcd screens? From what ive seen the main prob with lcd's is the only support low refresh rates especially at higher res. Personally ive never seen a lcd that gives a better picture than a crt dan "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yh9Na.7354$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:be34qm$og5k$[email hidden]... > > At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better or > frame > > rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at > > 1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it > > runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are

capable

Quoted text (8 lines)

> of > > that. > > > > > > Not necessarily true, unless you measure a Radeon 9700 Pro and a GeForce 4 > Ti4200 as comparable cards. First off, you're not saying what game you're > playing. I have a LCD 18", and with my GF4 Ti200 FIC runs perfectly fine

at > 1280x1024x32. Now with Nascar 2003, I drop down a bit and never run the > game in 32 bit, usually running in 1152x864. But even with most of the > options on and running N2003 in 1280x1024x32 I get at least 40 fps, full > field, in the back, with all cars drawn. I just prefer to get a bithigher > so I run in a lower resolution. > > And of course the processor speed might have something to do with it,also. > But I disagree with your opening statement-- and especially for F1C-- you > don't need all you say you need (LCD). > > Alanb > >

"Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iN6Na.12620$[email hidden]... > I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had > experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. > Thanks!!! > > I have a Radeon 9800 Pro with a Hitachi 19" TFT and it's SUPERB for racing It's crystal clear but at high speeds you get a TINY bit of blurring that basically acts as motion blur. I love it Doug

> Ti4200 as comparable cards. First off, you're not saying what game you're > playing. I have a LCD 18", and with my GF4 Ti200 FIC runs perfectly fineat > 1280x1024x32. I may run 'fine' but unless the CPU is very slow (<1.5GHz) the graphics card will easily be the bottleneck.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:11:53 +0100, "Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote: >What kinda refresh rates can u guys get on lcd screens? From what ive seen >the main prob with lcd's is the only support low refresh rates especially at >higher res. Personally ive never seen a lcd that gives a better picture than >a crt Refresh rates are irrelevent with LCD's, it is the pixel response rate (lower the better) that governs the gaming quality. Andrew.

> Refresh rates are irrelevent with LCD's, it is the pixel response rate > (lower the better) that governs the gaming quality. > There are some fairly good ones coming out now Dan with pixel response rates <25, which i think is good enough for smear-free gaming. I'm still not convinced at the minute either, but i'm open to changing my mind. Ash http://www.siroccoracing.com

The Hitachis are supposedly superb for games according to what I've read recently. Very low response times 12 and 15 ms. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Hitachi_TFT_135.html Iain "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be3nvo$141$[email hidden]... > > > Refresh rates are irrelevent with LCD's, it is the pixel response rate > > (lower the better) that governs the gaming quality. > > > > There are some fairly good ones coming out now Dan with pixel responserates

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <25, which i think is good enough for smear-free gaming. I'm still not > convinced at the minute either, but i'm open to changing my mind. > > Ash > http://www.siroccoracing.com > >

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

No problems with my Dell 1800FP 18" LCD. I run both NR2003 and F1C at 1280x1024x16 (cant tell the difference between the 2 if you ask me). Nice and bright, no blur that I can see and I get in the high 40's with usual settings for NR2003 and way up in the 60's and 70's with F1C and almost all the settings at FULL. BTW.....GF4 Ti4200 128 mb. I am sure that CRT's offer a better image quality, but to get a huge CRT (19" or up, which is equal to my LCD in screen size) you'd have to reinforce your desk for the weight and the physical size.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 06:38:48 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Not necessarily true, unless you measure a Radeon 9700 Pro and a GeForce 4 >Ti4200 as comparable cards. First off, you're not saying what game you're >playing. I have a LCD 18", and with my GF4 Ti200 FIC runs perfectly fine at >1280x1024x32. Now with Nascar 2003, I drop down a bit and never run the >game in 32 bit, usually running in 1152x864. But even with most of the >options on and running N2003 in 1280x1024x32 I get at least 40 fps, full >field, in the back, with all cars drawn. I just prefer to get a bit higher >so I run in a lower resolution.

Then what he says is right. With the 9700pro you could run N2003 at 1280x1024 and still get a good frame rate. I have the GF4 Ti4200 but am probably going to get the 9700pro very soon (or hold out a bit longer for a 9800pro) because many of my games I run at 1024x768 due to the fact the GF4 Ti4200 is not powerful enough to run them at 1280x1024 at the frame rates I like to see. Everything he says is correct, IMO.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:11:53 +0100, "Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote: >What kinda refresh rates can u guys get on lcd screens? From what ive seen >the main prob with lcd's is the only support low refresh rates especially at >higher res. Personally ive never seen a lcd that gives a better picture than >a crt Refresh rate is not an issue with LCD. They don't refresh the screen like CRT does, the pixel elements are either off or on. My LCD will do 75hz but I use 60hz because 60hz on an LCD looks as stable as 160hz on a CRT, and when I have tried 75hz I can see the edges of the LCD pixel elements for some reason. 60hz is best for LCD's.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:13:28 +0100, "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote: >There are some fairly good ones coming out now Dan with pixel response rates ><25, which i think is good enough for smear-free gaming. I'm still not >convinced at the minute either, but i'm open to changing my mind. > >Ash Reponse timing is not an issue with me when it comes to gaming on an LCD so let's discount that as a reason not to buy an LCD now. All you non LCD gamers are always bringing that issue up and it really is not as big an issue as you think it is. The only issue I have with LCD is that they do not display gradations in the dark tones as well as CRT. In games that use lots of dark areas it is quite noticeable.

Peter Parker wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:13:28 +0100, "Ashley McConnell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>There are some fairly good ones coming out now Dan with pixel response rates >><25, which i think is good enough for smear-free gaming. I'm still not >>convinced at the minute either, but i'm open to changing my mind. >> >>Ash > > > Reponse timing is not an issue with me when it comes to gaming on an > LCD so let's discount that as a reason not to buy an LCD now. All you > non LCD gamers are always bringing that issue up and it really is not > as big an issue as you think it is. The only issue I have with LCD is > that they do not display gradations in the dark tones as well as CRT. > In games that use lots of dark areas it is quite noticeable.

Agreed on the dark tone issue. On the response time thing; 50 ms is fast enough for gaming going by my own proview 17" LCD. Gerry

"Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Then what he says is right. With the 9700pro you could run N2003 at > 1280x1024 and still get a good frame rate. I have the GF4 Ti4200 but > am probably going to get the 9700pro very soon (or hold out a bit > longer for a 9800pro) because many of my games I run at 1024x768 due > to the fact the GF4 Ti4200 is not powerful enough to run them at > 1280x1024 at the frame rates I like to see. Everything he says is > correct, IMO. >

Of course the processor must be considered here. Having a 2.4 ghz with 512 RAM, an 18" LCD and a GeForce 4 Ti4200, I run all my games in 1280x1024x32, the exception being Nascar 2003, which I could run in 1280x1024x32, but, again 40 fps is not high enough for my liking. So don't tell me that with the processor at 2.4, using a GeForce 4 Ti4200, you can't run games in 1280x1024 and still get good frames. Alanb

Wow!!! Lots of response. I have the following setup: AMD XP 1700+ at 11x215=2365mhz 512mb of Corsair DDR Geforce 4 4200 I would think that would be good enough. I tried a Samsung 19" LCD at Best Buy and the smearing was terrible!!! I think it was the 191t or the 192t. From what i have read most of the 17" monitors have a better response time. I wonder if the 17" lcd would look a lot smaller than my 19 crt? Thanks again guys for all the input. "Lawman_02766" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> No problems with my Dell 1800FP 18" LCD. I run both NR2003 and F1C at > 1280x1024x16 (cant tell the difference between the 2 if you ask me). > Nice and bright, no blur that I can see and I get in the high 40's > with usual settings for NR2003 and way up in the 60's and 70's with > F1C and almost all the settings at FULL. BTW.....GF4 Ti4200 128 mb. > > I am sure that CRT's offer a better image quality, but to get a huge > CRT (19" or up, which is equal to my LCD in screen size) you'd have to > reinforce your desk for the weight and the physical size.

You definitely want to get one with a 16ms response time, and read reviews! Many LCD's are not fast enough for gaming and it causes blurry motion. The ScreenSavers on TechTV covered this a while back, and the LCD's they use on-stage for their Thursday LAN parties seem to be ok. They are NEC/Mitsubishi 1880's or something like that. -Larry "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iN6Na.12620$[email hidden]... > I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had > experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. > Thanks!!! > > >

My PNY GeForce Ti4400 is just dandy at 1280X1024X16. NR2003 frame rates are anywhere from 40 to 100 depending on the track and number of cars, and I run everything on full. -Larry "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be34qm$og5k$[email hidden]... > At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better orframe > rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at > 1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it > runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are capableof > that. > >

Refresh rates are not an issue on LCD's. It's the pixel response time that's the issue. Most are 25ms. You really want one of the newer 16ms displays for the best results. -Larry "Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be3gce$rbuf$[email hidden]... > What kinda refresh rates can u guys get on lcd screens? From what ive seen > the main prob with lcd's is the only support low refresh rates especiallyat > higher res. Personally ive never seen a lcd that gives a better picturethan

Quoted text (11 lines)

> a crt > dan > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Yh9Na.7354$[email hidden]... > > > > "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:be34qm$og5k$[email hidden]... > > > At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better or > > frame > > > rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at > > > 1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception -

it

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are > capable > > of > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > Not necessarily true, unless you measure a Radeon 9700 Pro and a GeForce

4 > > Ti4200 as comparable cards. First off, you're not saying what gameyou're > > playing. I have a LCD 18", and with my GF4 Ti200 FIC runs perfectlyfine

Quoted text (11 lines)

> at > > 1280x1024x32. Now with Nascar 2003, I drop down a bit and never run the > > game in 32 bit, usually running in 1152x864. But even with most of the > > options on and running N2003 in 1280x1024x32 I get at least 40 fps, full > > field, in the back, with all cars drawn. I just prefer to get a bit > higher > > so I run in a lower resolution. > > > > And of course the processor speed might have something to do with it, > also. > > But I disagree with your opening statement-- and especially for F1C--

you

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > don't need all you say you need (LCD). > > > > Alanb > > > > > >

My God, VAT is 17.5 %? Holy shit. -Larry "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The Hitachis are supposedly superb for games according to what I've read > recently. Very low response times 12 and 15 ms. >http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Hitachi_TFT_135.html

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > Iain > > "Ashley McConnell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:be3nvo$141$[email hidden]... > > > > > Refresh rates are irrelevent with LCD's, it is the pixel response rate > > > (lower the better) that governs the gaming quality. > > > > > > > There are some fairly good ones coming out now Dan with pixel response > rates > > <25, which i think is good enough for smear-free gaming. I'm still not > > convinced at the minute either, but i'm open to changing my mind. > > > > Ash > > http://www.siroccoracing.com > > > > > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

My God, VAT is 17.5 %? Holy shit. -Larry [link lost in import]

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Iain > > > Refresh rates are irrelevent with LCD's, it is the pixel response rate > > > (lower the better) that governs the *** quality. > > There are some fairly good ones coming out now Dan with pixel response > rates > > <25, which i think is good enough for smear-free ***. I'm still not > > convinced at the minute either, but i'm open to changing my mind. > > Ash > > [link lost in import] > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

I HAVE used LCD's for gaming and Pixel Response Rate most certainly IS a consideration. However, I am in agreement that not all LCD's have great gradiation properties, or black levels. Unfortunately, the ratings of Contrast Ratio's are up to each manufacturer, and the don't all use the same baseline when coming up with their numbers. Ditto for brightness levels. This is an issue that has had a lot of discussion recently. -Larry "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 12:13:28 +0100, "Ashley McConnell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >There are some fairly good ones coming out now Dan with pixel responserates

Quoted text (11 lines)

> ><25, which i think is good enough for smear-free gaming. I'm still not > >convinced at the minute either, but i'm open to changing my mind. > > > >Ash > > Reponse timing is not an issue with me when it comes to gaming on an > LCD so let's discount that as a reason not to buy an LCD now. All you > non LCD gamers are always bringing that issue up and it really is not > as big an issue as you think it is. The only issue I have with LCD is > that they do not display gradations in the dark tones as well as CRT. > In games that use lots of dark areas it is quite noticeable.

One more thing to consider... If you own an LCD long enough, it WILL eventually need a backlight replacement. I service Laptops all day long, and with the exception of Hard Drives (no one makes a reliable 2.5" hard drive yet IMHO), LCD Backlights are the most common failure. I have to repair several dozen a year. IMHO, Backlight failures and repairs are the dirty-little-secret of the LCD industry. If you are under warranty, you are fine. If you are out of warranty, you are truly screwed. Don't think you can replace a $20 light bulb. You SHOULD be able to, but they won't do it. No, they will charge you for an ENTIRE panel assembly and it's a rip-off. 14-15" IBM Laptop repairs for bad backlights out of warranty cost around $900. Yes, I said Nine-Hundred-Dollars for a $20 or so light bulb. And as far as I know all manufacturers will not simply replace your backlight. Watch your warranty. Some LCD's have one year warranties. Some have three year warranties. The most dispicable warranties are the one's that provide three year warranties, but only one year on the backlight. WATCH OUT FOR THIS! Also it doesn't hurt to research the manufacturers dead/stuck-pixel policy. This one is all over the board. -Larry "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RElNa.593$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Wow!!! Lots of response. I have the following setup: > AMD XP 1700+ at 11x215=2365mhz > 512mb of Corsair DDR > Geforce 4 4200 > > I would think that would be good enough. I tried a Samsung 19" LCD at Best > Buy and the smearing was terrible!!! I think it was the 191t or the 192t. > From what i have read most of the 17" monitors have a better response

time.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I wonder if the 17" lcd would look a lot smaller than my 19 crt? Thanks > again guys for all the input. > "Lawman_02766" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > No problems with my Dell 1800FP 18" LCD. I run both NR2003 and F1C at > > 1280x1024x16 (cant tell the difference between the 2 if you ask me). > > Nice and bright, no blur that I can see and I get in the high 40's > > with usual settings for NR2003 and way up in the 60's and 70's with > > F1C and almost all the settings at FULL. BTW.....GF4 Ti4200 128 mb. > > > > I am sure that CRT's offer a better image quality, but to get a huge > > CRT (19" or up, which is equal to my LCD in screen size) you'd have to > > reinforce your desk for the weight and the physical size. > > >

Thanks Larry lots of good information "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bTmNa.3723$[email hidden]... > You definitely want to get one with a 16ms response time, and readreviews! > Many LCD's are not fast enough for gaming and it causes blurry motion. > > The ScreenSavers on TechTV covered this a while back, and the LCD's theyuse

Quoted text (15 lines)

> on-stage for their Thursday LAN parties seem to be ok. They are > NEC/Mitsubishi 1880's or something like that. > > -Larry > > "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iN6Na.12620$[email hidden]... > > I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had > > experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. > > Thanks!!! > > > > > > > >

Thanks Larry lots of good information > You definitely want to get one with a 16ms response time, and read reviews! > Many LCD's are not fast enough for *** and it causes blurry motion. > The ScreenSavers on TechTV covered this a while back, and the LCD's they use

Quoted text (11 lines)

> on-stage for their Thursday LAN parties seem to be ok. They are > NEC/Mitsubishi 1880's or something like that. > -Larry > > I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had > > experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. > > Thanks!!!

Larry wrote: > My God, VAT is 17.5 %? > > Holy shit. > > -Larry Yep, the Great British ripoff. You wanna see how much tax we pay on fuel !! Actually, you probably don't. -- Ian P <email invalid due to spammers>

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GWmNa.3735$[email hidden]... > My God, VAT is 17.5 %? > 24% where I am... Jone Norway (or No Way!)

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:E3nNa.3759$[email hidden]... > > IMHO, Backlight failures and repairs are the dirty-little-secret of theLCD > industry. If you are under warranty, you are fine. If you are out of > warranty, you are truly screwed. Don't think you can replace a $20 light > bulb. You SHOULD be able to, but they won't do it. No, they will charge > you for an ENTIRE panel assembly and it's a rip-off. > It's not a light bulb is it? Isn't it some kind of light emitting sheet that covers the whole screen and needs 100 or so Volts to light up? Would it be a technically easy task to replace them instead of replacing the whole screen? -- Jone Tytlandsvik http://tytlandsvik.no

"Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iN6Na.12620$[email hidden]... > I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had > experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. > Thanks!!! > > > Picked up a Samsung Syncmaster 191T a few weeks ago. Superb for racing sims. No "ghosting"/"smearing" at all. Sharp, bright. Actual screen real estate nearly as big as a 21" CRT. Read a differing opinion somewhere in this discussion, I don't have a clue what they are talking about. I am using in digital mode with digital port on Ti4200, 2.4 ghz P4. Maybe the one they were looking at was running in analog. When checking out monitors at a store, who knows what the setup might be. All I know is that this thing is slick. Love it. KH

Thanks Karl I was the one that saw ghosting. I will have to go back and see if it was hooked up analogue. I bet you are right! Thanks!!! "Karl Heinz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iN6Na.12620$[email hidden]... > > I may need to replace my monitor and I was wonder if anyone has had > > experience with LCD monitors and racing games like F1C or GPL. > > Thanks!!! > > > > > > > > Picked up a Samsung Syncmaster 191T a few weeks ago. Superb for racing > sims. No "ghosting"/"smearing" at all. Sharp, bright. Actual screen

real > estate nearly as big as a 21" CRT. Read a differing opinion somewhere in > this discussion, I don't have a clue what they are talking about. I am > using in digital mode with digital port on Ti4200, 2.4 ghz P4. Maybe the > one they were looking at was running in analog. When checking outmonitors > at a store, who knows what the setup might be. All I know is that this > thing is slick. Love it. > > KH > >

In article <11oNa.47118$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Ian P) wrote: > Yep, the Great British ripoff. I like VAT, it's a very democratic tax. > You wanna see how much tax we pay on fuel! Not enough ;-) Andrew McP

Larry wrote: > > My God, VAT is 17.5 %? > > Holy shit. try 24% here.... Which when you appreciate the benefits of having your own little shop, I don't pay VAT on things I can justify as needed from a business POV.....you'd be surprised of what you need when you run a small computer shop :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

> Agreed on the dark tone issue. On the response time thing; 50 ms is fast > enough for gaming going by my own proview 17" LCD. 50ms? Surely that means a maximum of 20 frames per second? (Or is it 40fps?) ....not good either way....

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:29:04 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Agreed on the dark tone issue. On the response time thing; 50 ms is fast >> enough for gaming going by my own proview 17" LCD. > >50ms? Surely that means a maximum of 20 frames per second? (Or is it >40fps?) ....not good either way.... >Do a bit of research on the net about response rates, you are very misguided. Andrew.

> >50ms? Surely that means a maximum of 20 frames per second? (Or is it > >40fps?) ....not good either way.... > > > Do a bit of research on the net about response rates, you are very > misguided. Oh, dear :-/ .........My apologies

> Do a bit of research on the net about response rates, you are very > misguided. Nope. Can't find anything. Share your wisdom.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:47:31 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Do a bit of research on the net about response rates, you are very >> misguided. > >Nope. Can't find anything. Share your wisdom. >A 10 second search on google revealed: http://www.monitorsdirect.com/pdf/lcd_buy_guide.pdf Andrew.

> http://www.monitorsdirect.com/pdf/lcd_buy_guide.pdf I was hoping you could give a one sentence answer - no I've got to install acro reader grrrr...

> > http://www.monitorsdirect.com/pdf/lcd_buy_guide.pdf > > I was hoping you could give a one sentence answer - no I've got to install > acro reader grrrr... And after all that I was right anyway!! jeez....

1 second divided by 50ms = 20 frames per second (Admittedly 20 blurred frames per second)

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:08:51 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >And after all that I was right anyway!! jeez.... >As was stated before, refresh rate isn't a factor, so how were you right when talking about 20 or 40 fps? Response rate is measured in milliseconds, not in hertz like refresh rate. Andrew.

> As was stated before, refresh rate isn't a factor, so how were you > right when talking about 20 or 40 fps? Response rate is measured in > milliseconds, not in hertz like refresh rate. At 50ms response, a pixel can only change 20 times per second. Therefore you can only effectively have 20 different frames per second.......simple really.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:26:04 +0100, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yep, the Great British ripoff. That's not much dif than Canda. We pay 7% GST and 8% provincial tax, depending on which province (it varies but most are 8%).

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 20:29:04 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >50ms? Surely that means a maximum of 20 frames per second? (Or is it >40fps?) ....not good either way.... > Again, you don't understand how it works. The response time varies from each pixel elment depending on which colour it is displaying. Dark pixels take longer to draw than lighter ones. It's not a full screen refresh of 50ms so it's not a good way to measure the max frame rate you will get.

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 00:05:37 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> http://www.monitorsdirect.com/pdf/lcd_buy_guide.pdf > >I was hoping you could give a one sentence answer - no I've got to install >acro reader grrrr... >Read my answer to you.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:11:55 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I HAVE used LCD's for gaming and Pixel Response Rate most certainly IS a >consideration. Yes, it's a consideration. But all the decent LCD's out now are fast enough for gaming and shouldn't be discounted because the response time is 20ms. Any LCD with <30ms is adequate.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:37:35 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >So don't tell me that with the processor at 2.4, using a GeForce 4 Ti4200, >you can't run games in 1280x1024 and still get good frames. > >Alanb > I'm telling you that. OK, I have a P4 2.2ghz but I don't think having 200mhz extra in speed is going to gain you much more than a few FPS over me, at most. Maybe my tolerance level for poor FPS is lower than yours, maybe I have games that you don't have that I find are not fast enough on this system. For example, IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles (do you have this game?) I have to turn the draw distance to low and I have to set it to 1024x768 because flying over cities causes poor frame rate with higher settings. I can not tolerate a dogfight over a city when the frame rate is not fast enough to give me completely smooth motion.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:19:16 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>One more thing to consider... > >If you own an LCD long enough, it WILL eventually need a backlight >replacement. > >I service Laptops all day long, and with the exception of Hard Drives (no >one makes a reliable 2.5" hard drive yet IMHO), LCD Backlights are the most >common failure. I have to repair several dozen a year. > >IMHO, Backlight failures and repairs are the dirty-little-secret of the LCD >industry. If you are under warranty, you are fine. If you are out of >warranty, you are truly screwed. Don't think you can replace a $20 light >bulb. You SHOULD be able to, but they won't do it. No, they will charge >you for an ENTIRE panel assembly and it's a rip-off. > >14-15" IBM Laptop repairs for bad backlights out of warranty cost around >$900. Yes, I said Nine-Hundred-Dollars for a $20 or so light bulb. > >And as far as I know all manufacturers will not simply replace your >backlight. > >Watch your warranty. Some LCD's have one year warranties. Some have three >year warranties. The most dispicable warranties are the one's that provide >three year warranties, but only one year on the backlight. WATCH OUT FOR >THIS!

I was wondering about backlight replacement costs just recently. I was figuring it shouldn't cost any more than a hundred bucks to replace but now you have opened my eyes I am disgusted. The computer industry is run by thieves, IMO.

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 02:41:28 +0200, "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's not a light bulb is it? Isn't it some kind of light emitting sheet that >covers the whole screen and needs 100 or so Volts to light up? >Would it be a technically easy task to replace them instead of replacing the >whole screen? No, it's a flourescent bulb that backlights the screen.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:03:14 -0400, "Brian Bowles" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Thanks Karl I was the one that saw ghosting. I will have to go back and see >if it was hooked up analogue. I bet you are right! Thanks!!! Analog or Digital won't make a difference to ghosting. Maybe they were running it on a dog slow video card. Digital just gives a purer signal and doesn't make much dif really. Another thing to consider is that when you view monitors in the store they are usually running them all off of one PC and have to split the video signal which causes major image degradation problems. I was viewing an NEC FE950 in the store once and it looked slightly blurred because of this reason, but I knew it was a good monitor so bought it anyway and it looked great running on my own PC.

<aep@nospam writeme.com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > As was stated before, refresh rate isn't a factor, so how were you > right when talking about 20 or 40 fps? Response rate is measured in > milliseconds, not in hertz like refresh rate. > What unit is used to measure things is not relevant. 50 fps = 50 Hz = one frame every 20 millisecond. -- Jone Tytlandsvik http://tytlandsvik.no

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LMBNa.2907$[email hidden]... > At 50ms response, a pixel can only change 20 times per second. Therefore > you can only effectively have 20 different frames per second.......simple > really. > Are you sure? Could it not be that all screen updates will be delayed 50ms. You can update the LCD 100 times per sec, but all updates will show up 50 ms after they was drawn to the screen? I admit I'm on thin ice here. -- Jone Tytlandsvik http://tytlandsvik.no

Pixel response time is how long it takes a screen pixel to go from white to black and back to white again.

> Again, you don't understand how it works. The response time varies > from each pixel elment depending on which colour it is displaying. > Dark pixels take longer to draw than lighter ones. It's not a full > screen refresh of 50ms so it's not a good way to measure the max frame > rate you will get. That's certainly true but most changes from frame to frame have significant colour changes. I'm sure some people would be perfectly content with a 50ms screen but personally, I wouldn't even consider an LCD rated higher than 20ms (but I'm pretty picky about frame rate stuff)

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>Again, you don't understand how it works. The response time varies >>from each pixel elment depending on which colour it is displaying. >>Dark pixels take longer to draw than lighter ones. It's not a full >>screen refresh of 50ms so it's not a good way to measure the max frame >>rate you will get. > > > That's certainly true but most changes from frame to frame have significant > colour changes. I'm sure some people would be perfectly content with a 50ms > screen but personally, I wouldn't even consider an LCD rated higher than > 20ms (but I'm pretty picky about frame rate stuff) > >

As I stated, 50ms IS fast enough for gaming! I own an 50ms LCD and have tested it with many games. It works perfectly well. It is NOT restricted to 20 fps, as you incorrectly stated. You DON'T own one, you DON'T understand the underlying technology, so I don't think you are in any position to tell me that my LCD isn't good enough. Not that I give a flying fark what you think anyway! :) Gerry

Peter Parker wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:11:55 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>I HAVE used LCD's for gaming and Pixel Response Rate most certainly IS a >>consideration. > > > Yes, it's a consideration. But all the decent LCD's out now are fast > enough for gaming and shouldn't be discounted because the response > time is 20ms. Any LCD with <30ms is adequate.

<50 is adequate.

> You DON'T own one, you DON'T understand the underlying technology, so I > don't think you are in any position to tell me that my LCD isn't good > enough. I've used them, I've seen them. I am most definitely in a position to comment. > Not that I give a flying fark what you think anyway! :) That sentence sums up your entire attitude to this group.

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>You DON'T own one, you DON'T understand the underlying technology, so I >>don't think you are in any position to tell me that my LCD isn't good >>enough. > > > I've used them, I've seen them. I am most definitely in a position to > comment.

The fact is that the Proview 17" LCD I have tried with games, shows not significant ghosting. There is a slight motion blur in racing games, which helps give a better feeling of speed. Good news surely? Gerry

> There is a slight motion blur in racing games, which helps give a better > feeling of speed. It might help GPL which is stuck at 36fps but the games that run faster suffer a bit. Not unplayable but second fiddle to a CRT.

Damien Smith wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>There is a slight motion blur in racing games, which helps give a better >>feeling of speed. > > > It might help GPL which is stuck at 36fps but the games that run faster > suffer a bit. Not unplayable but second fiddle to a CRT. > >

N2003, F12002 and it's mods all run fine. :)

I too am having problems with Nascar 2003 and my new Radeon 9700 video card. Anyone, please tell me if this sounds correct to you! My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22 fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the twenties somewhere. The kicker (and what I don't understand) is this: I get this same performance (within 3 fps) when I run at 800x600 or at 1600x1200. I also get this same performance whether I have my Catalyst driver settings at the minimum (max performance) or at the maximum (max quality - which by the was is at 4X AA and 8X Anis. Filtering). This seems very strange to me. The only way for me to adjust my fps, is to adjust the in game options. For example, I can increase framerate by reducing the number of cars I see ahead. This is driving me crazy! Why is my framerate not changing when I change the resolution and driver settings?! Should I return my card? Do I have a faulty card? HELP! SkykingUSA "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<be34qm$og5k$[email hidden]>... > At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better or frame > rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at > 1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it > runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are capable of > that.

SkykingUSA wrote:

Quoted text (37 lines)

> I too am having problems with Nascar 2003 and my new Radeon 9700 video > card. Anyone, please tell me if this sounds correct to you! > > My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro > version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play > Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22 > fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never > drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the > twenties somewhere. > > The kicker (and what I don't understand) is this: I get this same > performance (within 3 fps) when I run at 800x600 or at 1600x1200. I > also get this same performance whether I have my Catalyst driver > settings at the minimum (max performance) or at the maximum (max > quality - which by the was is at 4X AA and 8X Anis. Filtering). This > seems very strange to me. > > The only way for me to adjust my fps, is to adjust the in game > options. For example, I can increase framerate by reducing the number > of cars I see ahead. > > This is driving me crazy! Why is my framerate not changing when I > change the resolution and driver settings?! Should I return my card? > Do I have a faulty card? HELP! > > SkykingUSA > > > > "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<be34qm$og5k$[email hidden]>... > >>At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better or frame >>rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at >>1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it >>runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards are capable of >>that. >

is 'wait for v-sync' turned on? Gerry

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I'm telling you that. OK, I have a P4 2.2ghz but I don't think having > 200mhz extra in speed is going to gain you much more than a few FPS > over me, at most. Maybe my tolerance level for poor FPS is lower than > yours, maybe I have games that you don't have that I find are not fast > enough on this system. For example, IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles > (do you have this game?) I have to turn the draw distance to low and I > have to set it to 1024x768 because flying over cities causes poor > frame rate with higher settings. I can not tolerate a dogfight over a > city when the frame rate is not fast enough to give me completely > smooth motion.

I thought we were speaking of racing titles. Obviously, flight sims are a different story. Still, with MSFS 2004, I get a steady 36-40 fps, running at 1280x1024x32. I even tried dipping down to 1024x768x32, and my fps did not drastically change. I doubt things would be different with a CRT monitor. Some games, for sure, take more horsepower, and running in higher resolutions, such as 1280x1024x32 (LCD), is not a good idea if you want smooth gameplay. Alanb

It may be on, I'll have to check. I thought that would only limit my fps to a max equal to my monitor's refresh rate? Does it affect my overall performance too? My refresh rate is 85Hz, so doesn't that setting simply limit my fps to 85? Thanks for your response, I am going nuts here! SkykingUSA > > is 'wait for v-sync' turned on? > > Gerry

On 7 Jul 2003 09:28:01 -0700, [email hidden] (SkykingUSA) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro >version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play >Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22 >fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never >drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the >twenties somewhere. >

What sort of RAM are you using? Andrew.

On 7 Jul 2003 09:28:01 -0700, [email hidden] (SkykingUSA) wrote: >This is driving me crazy! Why is my framerate not changing when I >change the resolution and driver settings?! Should I return my card? >Do I have a faulty card? HELP! Probably because you have vsync on so the max frame rate is tied to your refresh rate setting. Turn off vsync and the FPS should go up.

It was turned on, so I turned it off and it didn't make a difference. Someone else told me that I am CPU bound. I tend to believe that now. I did some more testing and the major difference in my frame rate is based on the number of cars drawn ahead which is what the CPU must be involved in. The number of cars ahead doesn't change with screen resolution, nor does it change with different AA or AF settings. Thanks for the reply. SkykingUSA "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> SkykingUSA wrote: > > I too am having problems with Nascar 2003 and my new Radeon 9700 video > > card. Anyone, please tell me if this sounds correct to you! > > > > My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro > > version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play > > Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22 > > fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never > > drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the > > twenties somewhere. > > > > The kicker (and what I don't understand) is this: I get this same > > performance (within 3 fps) when I run at 800x600 or at 1600x1200. I > > also get this same performance whether I have my Catalyst driver > > settings at the minimum (max performance) or at the maximum (max > > quality - which by the was is at 4X AA and 8X Anis. Filtering). This > > seems very strange to me. > > > > The only way for me to adjust my fps, is to adjust the in game > > options. For example, I can increase framerate by reducing the number > > of cars I see ahead. > > > > This is driving me crazy! Why is my framerate not changing when I > > change the resolution and driver settings?! Should I return my card? > > Do I have a faulty card? HELP! > > > > SkykingUSA > > > > > > > > "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<be34qm$og5k$[email hidden]>... > > > >>At 1280x1024, you really need at least a Radeon 9700 Pro or better orframe > >>rate will be compromised. The alternative would be to run a GF4 Ti at > >>1280x1024x16bit to maintain good frame rates. GPL is the exception - it > >>runs in 16-bit and only 36fps so most half-decent video cards arecapable of

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >>that. > > > > is 'wait for v-sync' turned on? > > Gerry >

I'm not sure. I'm using a borrowed computer that I did not build, but the memory was installed at the IBM factory. Thanks for the reply, I will do some more testing. SkykingUSA <aep@nospam writeme.com> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On 7 Jul 2003 09:28:01 -0700, [email hidden] (SkykingUSA) > wrote: > > >My system is a 1.8 GHz P4, 512 MB RAM, AGP 4x, Radeon 9700 (non-pro > >version). I have installed the Catalyst 3.5 drivers. When I play > >Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 22 > >fps. In-game options are all default. During the race, my fps never > >drops below 18 and has gone as high as 52, but usually is in the > >twenties somewhere. > > > What sort of RAM are you using? > > Andrew.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:17:26 GMT, "SkykingUSA" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm not sure. I'm using a borrowed computer that I did not build, but the >memory was installed at the IBM factory. >If it is something like PC100 SDRAM that will be a bottleneck for your processor. Andrew.

<<shivers>> "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:11oNa.47118$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Larry wrote: > > My God, VAT is 17.5 %? > > > > Holy shit. > > > > -Larry > > Yep, the Great British ripoff. > You wanna see how much tax we pay on fuel !! Actually, you probably don't. > > -- > > Ian P > <email invalid due to spammers> > > > >

That's really incredible... But, I guess it also depends on what social services are provided. -Larry "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be56am$1c2a0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GWmNa.3735$[email hidden]... > > My God, VAT is 17.5 %? > > > > 24% where I am... > > Jone > Norway (or No Way!) > >

Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Motion-Blur is bad enough with DVD's much less racing games on LCD's with poor pixel-response rates. -Larry "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Peter Parker wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:11:55 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > >>I HAVE used LCD's for gaming and Pixel Response Rate most certainly IS a > >>consideration. > > > > > > Yes, it's a consideration. But all the decent LCD's out now are fast > > enough for gaming and shouldn't be discounted because the response > > time is 20ms. Any LCD with <30ms is adequate. > > <50 is adequate. >

Designs can be different, but I actually removed the lamps from some broken LCD's, so some of them are definitely replaceable. -Larry "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:be56rt$1flit$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:E3nNa.3759$[email hidden]... > > > > IMHO, Backlight failures and repairs are the dirty-little-secret of the > LCD > > industry. If you are under warranty, you are fine. If you are out of > > warranty, you are truly screwed. Don't think you can replace a $20

light > > bulb. You SHOULD be able to, but they won't do it. No, they willcharge > > you for an ENTIRE panel assembly and it's a rip-off. > > > > It's not a light bulb is it? Isn't it some kind of light emitting sheetthat > covers the whole screen and needs 100 or so Volts to light up? > Would it be a technically easy task to replace them instead of replacingthe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> whole screen? > > > -- > Jone Tytlandsvik > http://tytlandsvik.no > >

Correct. I'm sure there are some esoteric designs out there that are different, but most are flourescent bulbs. The two wires connect to what's called the "Inverter Board", which controls the brightness. -Larry "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 02:41:28 +0200, "Jone Tytlandsvik" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >It's not a light bulb is it? Isn't it some kind of light emitting sheetthat > >covers the whole screen and needs 100 or so Volts to light up? > >Would it be a technically easy task to replace them instead of replacingthe > >whole screen? > > No, it's a flourescent bulb that backlights the screen.

Oh, I'm sure that when pressed they will have a 'reason' :) -Larry "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:19:16 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I was wondering about backlight replacement costs just recently. I was > figuring it shouldn't cost any more than a hundred bucks to replace > but now you have opened my eyes I am disgusted. The computer industry > is run by thieves, IMO.

Ghosting isn't really a function/failure of the video card. Again, refresh rates are practically a non-subject with LCD's. It's the _pixel response characteristics_ that cause ghosting on LCD's. Analog connections can induce noise under some circumstances that certainly will affect the performance of LCD's. Most of the time they are fine though. -Larry "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:03:14 -0400, "Brian Bowles" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Thanks Karl I was the one that saw ghosting. I will have to go back andsee

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >if it was hooked up analogue. I bet you are right! Thanks!!! > > Analog or Digital won't make a difference to ghosting. Maybe they were > running it on a dog slow video card. Digital just gives a purer signal > and doesn't make much dif really. Another thing to consider is that > when you view monitors in the store they are usually running them all > off of one PC and have to split the video signal which causes major > image degradation problems. I was viewing an NEC FE950 in the store > once and it looked slightly blurred because of this reason, but I knew > it was a good monitor so bought it anyway and it looked great running > on my own PC.

It really isn't tied together that way. Think of it like this.... Let's say you light up a pixel on the right side of the display. You intend to walk that 'dot' across the screen by turning off that pixel, and turning on the one to it's left. Repeat 1024 times (for a 15" LCD). Depending on the pixel response characteristics, the movement may 'blur' because the pixels cannot turn on or off fast enough to prevent it. When the one on the right shuts off and the one to the left turns on, when the one on the left comes on the right one is still partially visible due to it's slow response time, and thus 'ghosting' occurs. -Larry "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RzxNa.2773$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Agreed on the dark tone issue. On the response time thing; 50 ms is fast > > enough for gaming going by my own proview 17" LCD. > > 50ms? Surely that means a maximum of 20 frames per second? (Or is it > 40fps?) ....not good either way.... > >

Um, no :) While _technically_ correct (kind of), the reality is that the pixel can still be ASKED to change a lot more than that. You don't really know what frames will actually displayed, just that it won't be all of them. You can't really tie frame rate to pixel response. -Larry "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LMBNa.2907$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > As was stated before, refresh rate isn't a factor, so how were you > > right when talking about 20 or 40 fps? Response rate is measured in > > milliseconds, not in hertz like refresh rate. > > At 50ms response, a pixel can only change 20 times per second. Therefore > you can only effectively have 20 different frames per second.......simple > really. > >

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:44:06 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Motion-Blur is bad enough >with DVD's much less racing games on LCD's with poor pixel-response rates. > >-Larry I'm watching TV on my LCD right now as I'm typing this. There is no blurring at all.

Larry wrote: > Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Motion-Blur is bad enough > with DVD's much less racing games on LCD's with poor pixel-response rates. Well I wasn't talking about DVD's. But as far as racing sims go, <=50 is good enough. My proview has proved this.

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > -Larry > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Peter Parker wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:11:55 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I HAVE used LCD's for gaming and Pixel Response Rate most certainly IS a >>>>consideration. >>> >>> >>>Yes, it's a consideration. But all the decent LCD's out now are fast >>>enough for gaming and shouldn't be discounted because the response >>>time is 20ms. Any LCD with <30ms is adequate. >> >><50 is adequate. >> > > >

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:06:21 +0100, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote without bothering to trim his post: >Well I wasn't talking about DVD's. But as far as racing sims go, <=50 is >good enough. My proview has proved this. >But you said before "There is a slight motion blur in racing games". That proves to me it isn't good enough. Andrew.

aep@nospam wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:06:21 +0100, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> wrote without bothering to trim his post: > > >>Well I wasn't talking about DVD's. But as far as racing sims go, <=50 is >>good enough. My proview has proved this. >> > > But you said before "There is a slight motion blur in racing games". > That proves to me it isn't good enough. > > Andrew.

'Slight' as in 'slight', and only at the edge of the screen. With a CRT you get strobing, that's track side objects going the wrong way! To say that slight blurring 'proves' it's not good enough only proves to me that you aren't bright enough!

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:06:21 +0100, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well I wasn't talking about DVD's. But as far as racing sims go, <=50 is >good enough. My proview has proved this. DVD's are fine too. I have a DVD player on my PC and they wouldn't be selling LCD TV's now if they were crap for DVD's.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:08:42 -0700, Peter Parker <[email hidden]> wrote: >DVD's are fine too. I have a DVD player on my PC and they wouldn't be >selling LCD TV's now if they were crap for DVD's. But LCD TV's cost a fortune compared to LCD monitors. I would expect for that price that they have a fast reponse rate. Andrew.

"Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > The quality of social services in Norway is way above the U.S. So are > their average wages. No, I'm not from Norway, but I know they are near > the top for quality of social programs. Social services may be free but they are certainly not of very high quality. Hospitals are run by the state and are not efficient. People die while in queue for simple surgery. Social services has to be outsourced to private companies or this will never get better. Problem is most people don't understand what the problem is. They think the state should run everything, managers of large companies should earn about the same as a industrial worker, and that is should be illegal to pay for heart surgery at a private clinic because it would be unfair to the not so wealthy. I guess you won't find a country where the "low" wages are higher than here, and that's nice, but there might not be that much left after you have paid all taxes. Example: You make 600.000. Your Employer has to pay 14,2% on your wage so what he pays is 685.200. This is a high wage (progressive tax) and half of it will be tax. You have 300.000. You use it all to buy a car. Now cars was sometime defined as a luxury item that no one really needed so it was heavily taxed. So half of you 300.000 goes to the state and the other half to the car dealer. So your Employer paid you 685.200 and all you could buy was a 150.000 car. The state got 535.000. The state is you and me, (Ed, Goy and me to be more specific) :) , but most of it got spilled away in the process of providing us with social services, roads and stuff. This is problem in all countries but I think it's quite bad over here. You have to compare the tax level in a country to what you get back in services, not how much the state are able to burn providing these services. I think Switzerland and maybe Canada are good at this, but I'm not sure. Another side effect of social services being free: Your in Iran, your pregnant. The local hospital in Tehran doesn't have the best reputation. To have the baby at a hospital cost nearly as much as a plane ticket to Norway. A friend of your sister-in-law's sister has a friend who's sister-in-law live in Norway. What do you do? You guessed it! You fly to Norway on a 3 month tourist visa, and have the baby on an, after all, quite decent Norwegian hospital. :) -- Jone Tytlandsvik http://tytlandsvik.no

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jPAOa.60$[email hidden]... > > I'm sure there are some esoteric designs out there that are different, but > most are flourescent bulbs. The two wires connect to what's called the > "Inverter Board", which controls the brightness. > I guess the "film" type I'm thinking of can't be used on coulor LCD's http://homepage.ntlworld.com/woodyatt/parts/parts.htm I also found this: http://www.elotouch.com/products/crtlife.asp#lcd "Cost of ownership considers maintenance costs over the life of the monitor as well as the initial cost. While the acquisition cost of an LCD monitor may be twice that of a CRT, the maintenance costs of an LCD monitor can be considerably less and may result in a lower cost of ownership. The following factors should be considered in the LCD/CRT selection: LCD backlights last about twice as long as CRTs and cost less to replace. LCDs backlights can be field replaced without the need for test equipment. CRT replacement requires special test equipment and cannot be replaced in the field. CRTs must be shipped to a repair depot resulting in increased down time and higher shipping costs." And this: http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=139035 -- Jone Tytlandsvik http://tytlandsvik.no

I guess the answer is balance :) Larry "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:42:30 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >That's really incredible... > > > >But, I guess it also depends on what social services are provided. > > > >-Larry > > The quality of social services in Norway is way above the U.S. So are > their average wages. No, I'm not from Norway, but I know they are near > the top for quality of social programs.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 02:08:42 -0700, Peter Parker <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:06:21 +0100, Gerry Aitken ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>Well I wasn't talking about DVD's. But as far as racing sims go, <=50 is >>good enough. My proview has proved this. > >DVD's are fine too. I have a DVD player on my PC and they wouldn't be >selling LCD TV's now if they were crap for DVD's.

I've seen them(LCD TVs), and they're not all that great for moving pictures. Motion blurring and streaking is most definitely there. Basically the same as LCD monitors.

I can tell you from experience that LCD Backlights do NOT always last twice as long as CRT's, and like I said they are the 2nd most common failure we see, second only to Hard Drives. Again, I have to have dozens repaired a year. And I have not seen a manufacturer in 10 years that would sell me a light bulb. The last one that I saw that on was an old (OLD) Apple Powerbook back in, oh, 1994/5. It's been whole-panels since then. Out-Of-Warranty CRT's are rarely repaired these days unless it is something simple or if it's a really expensive, specialty monitor. Manufacturers almost always drop-ship whole-unit replacements (typically refurbished) under warranty. Most Monitor repair shops are flat-rate and do whatever is necessary to fix it for $75 to $150, unless they need CRT's or Flyback's. These days, I do suspect there are computer modules that also cannot be component-level-repaired. -Larry "Jone Tytlandsvik" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:beh27f$51lq4$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> LCD backlights last about twice as long as CRTs and cost less to replace. > LCDs backlights can be field replaced without the need for test equipment. > CRT replacement requires special test equipment and cannot be replaced in > the field. CRTs must be shipped to a repair depot resulting in increased > down time and higher shipping costs." > Jone Tytlandsvik > http://tytlandsvik.no > >

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:08:50 +0100, aep@nospam writeme.com wrote: >But LCD TV's cost a fortune compared to LCD monitors. I would expect >for that price that they have a fast reponse rate. > >Andrew. No faster than a computer LCD. They charge more because they have a TV tuner and speakers built in and because it is new technology to that field. You can get a TV tuner for your PC for a hundred bucks anyway and turn it into a TV screen. In my computer I have TV tuner, FM tuner and DVD.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:29:54 +0200, Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> wrote: >I've seen them(LCD TVs), and they're not all that great for moving >pictures. Motion blurring and streaking is most definitely there. >Basically the same as LCD monitors. Yes, there is a bit but it's about trade offs and you have to decide which aspects of each technology you prefer. Nothing is perfect.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 15:03:39 -0700, Peter Parker <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >>I've seen them(LCD TVs), and they're not all that great for moving >>pictures. Motion blurring and streaking is most definitely there. >>Basically the same as LCD monitors. > >Yes, there is a bit but it's about trade offs and you have to decide >which aspects of each technology you prefer. Nothing is perfect.

Sure, but that makes the issue whether they are good enough for DVD:s a matter of opinion, not if they sell them or not.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:08:18 +0200, Magnus Svensson <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sure, but that makes the issue whether they are good enough for DVD:s >a matter of opinion, not if they sell them or not. > Well, all I can tell you is that I went from a 22" NEC FE series monitor to a 17" Samsung LCD and I have concluded they are good enough for DVD. I am quite critical of image quality too considering I am a printer and am trained to be critical of image quality. This motion blur you talk of I do not see, my criticism of LCD is it's contrast ratio which is far more noticeble when viewing a DVD than any blurring effects.

"Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:12:52 +0200, "Jone Tytlandsvik" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >Another side effect of social services being free: > >Your in Iran, your pregnant. The local hospital in Tehran doesn't havethe > >best reputation. To have the baby at a hospital cost nearly as much as a > >plane ticket to Norway. A friend of your sister-in-law's sister has afriend > >who's sister-in-law live in Norway. What do you do? You guessed it! Youfly

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >to Norway on a 3 month tourist visa, and have the baby on an, after all, > >quite decent Norwegian hospital. :) > > Yea, expatriate Brits used to fly back to the UK from Canada to get > expensive dental work done because flying there was cheaper than > having the dental work done here. I don't think that is the case > anymore though as the UK has cut many social programs.

Oh, the irony of Brits flying back to the UK for cheap dental work.... Stephen :-)

Peter Parker <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:08:50 +0100, aep@nospam writeme.com wrote: > > > >But LCD TV's cost a fortune compared to LCD monitors. I would expect > >for that price that they have a fast reponse rate. > > > >Andrew. > > No faster than a computer LCD. They charge more because they have a TV > tuner and speakers built in and because it is new technology to that > field. You can get a TV tuner for your PC for a hundred bucks anyway > and turn it into a TV screen. In my computer I have TV tuner, FM tuner > and DVD.

In this time of many people having pretty good home theatre systems, with satelite or cable, why can't TV producers start making models without TV-tuners, speakers and pseudo surround sound stuff. It's not needed. :) -- Olav Malmin remove .spam when replying

For all you who are interested, I thought I'd post my results here. Well, I installed the game (Nascar 2003) and my new Radeon 9700 card on another system: P4 2.4 GHz 768 MB RAM AGP 4x Radeon 9700 (non-pro version) Catalyst 3.5 drivers Catalyst settings: AA: 4x AF: 16x Vsynch:On Resolution: 1280x960 32-bit in a window Windows XP Pro Default in game options except where noted below 42 cars visible in front (only 28 in the race though) 14 sounds Extreme Texture level When I play Nascar 2003, I start the race at the back of the pack at around 35 fps now (22 with my other 1.8 GHz system). During the race, my fps is usually in the 30s, 40s or 50s and has gone as high as 102 when I'm facing the outside wall in a corner (not a desireable position, but great for performance!). I am surprised that this game is so CPU intensive. I would have thought it would be more like the 3D shooter games I am used to playing like Unreal, Quake, Return to Castle Wolfenstien. In those games it always appeared to be restricted by my video card, not my CPU. Well, thanks to this newsgroup, I decided not to return my video card, but to upgrade my processor and now I have a great gaming environment! Thanks a ton to all of you who took the time to respond - damn, I love the internet. SkykingUSA aep@nospam writeme.com wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 06:17:26 GMT, "SkykingUSA" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I'm not sure. I'm using a borrowed computer that I did not build, but the > >memory was installed at the IBM factory. > > > If it is something like PC100 SDRAM that will be a bottleneck for your > processor. > > Andrew.

No, and I never said it did. The US is FAR from balanced. This is more of a "Those with get, and those without don't" type of country. Larry "Peter Parker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:26:17 -0400, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I guess the answer is balance :) > > > >Larry > > Does the U.S. have balance? Not IMO. The poor are treated very > shabbily in the U.S. and that is the cost of having low taxes to keep > the tax payer happy. Canada has a much more balanced system, and we do > pay for social services through taxes and extra user fees (a medical > checkup is not free), and some provinces even charge for medicare. > Like B.C. where it is $54.00 per month for a single person. So don't > go thinking we are a bunch of socialist freeloaders as I see some > americans like to think of us.