about monitor performance

Flyby · March 1, 2009

I could go to many tech forums, and I have, and never receive the perspective of flight simmers. So here I ask you about:

how important the response time of your monitor is to your simming experience?
when is ghosting, and/or other monitor-related visual distractions, if any, noticeable to you as you go flying along in your flight sim?
What sims are you flying where monitor response performance seems to be an issue?
if anyone using a 120hz monitor for flight simming, what is your opinion of it's performance? (maybe write a review as a separate thread?)
what is the response time of the monitor you are currently using, and (obviously) is it acceptable for your flight simming experience?

I did a search, but did not find the answers I was looking for, so anyone who provides info here will be greatly appreciated. Sorry to be a nuisance!:music_whistling:

Flyby out

Edited March 1, 2009 by Flyby

crazysundog · March 1, 2009

I have an LG Flatron W2242TQ, which has a 2ms response time. I have yet to experience ghosting, or performance issues with this monitor.

p.s., it is a 22", and 60hz

Flyby · March 1, 2009

attention crazysundog, your reply is much appreciated!:D

Flyby out

Zembla · March 1, 2009

I use a Dell 2408WFP. Because it has an S-PVA panel rather than a TN panel it has a higher response time (but much better viewing angle, and 8 bits, rather than 6 bits colors).

The response time is fairly high, but tbh, I haven't noticed much ghosting, or anything that's really a problem. This isn't twitch gaming like CounterStrike etc is. The need for a split microsecond response time is just absent all together.

-Z

Flyby · March 2, 2009

I use a Dell 2408WFP. Because it has an S-PVA panel rather than a TN panel it has a higher response time (but much better viewing angle, and 8 bits, rather than 6 bits colors).

The response time is fairly high, but tbh, I haven't noticed much ghosting, or anything that's really a problem. This isn't twitch gaming like CounterStrike etc is. The need for a split microsecond response time is just absent all together.

-Z

Zembla, this too is great info. There's always been a struggle for me as to going with a TN panel rather than an S-PVA. Something to be said for true 8 bit color, I suppose. If ghosting is not a problem for you with flight sims, then that is a definite plus for me!:thumbup:

Flyby out

ps I hope others find this thread useful too. ;)

S77th-konkussion · March 2, 2009

I use a 60 HZ SamSung 216BW (21.6") w/ a 5 ms response. Response is critical- I'm not sure at which speed that ghosting & blurring become an issue, but I seem to remember that we used to discuss this during the thrust of the "transition" it seemed to me that 12 ms was right there at the cusp..

Kuky · March 2, 2009

I use Samsung SyncMaster 2493HM (24") and although in LockOn and BlaskShark I see no lag/ghosting, in ArmA I do notice some lag with quick mouse movement and video displayed although I don't know if it's caused by video card or monitor (It can't be the mouse because mouse is Logitech G9)

Flyby · March 2, 2009

konkussion and Kuky, thank you both for the info. I suppose at one time a 12ms monitor was blazing fast for it's time (prolly just a couple of years ago). It occurs to me to ask, Kuky, if when you notice ghosting in ArmA, the scene displayed is an outside scene? More to the point, in a combat flight sim is the ghosting less noticeable when the view is from inside the cockpit? Do either of you see ghosting from inside the ccokpit when quickly panning, for instance? Is it correct to assume (anyone chime in here if they know) that the lower the monitor's response time, the less ghosting one sees when quickly panning with TIR inside the ccokpit?thanks guys!

Flyby out

Vault · March 2, 2009

I've a 2ms Samsung Synchmaster, never suffered from ghosting.

BTTW-DratsaB · March 2, 2009

Samsung T240 here. 5ms and ghosting is noticeable. Not so much in Flightsims but it is there. I know some LCD monitors come with RTC (response time compensation), but supposedly they add artifacts some times. Has anyone any expierience with these RTC modes?

Flyby · March 2, 2009

Hi Vault and DratsaB,

so maybe a monitor with 2ms response time is the silver bullet? and maybe 5ms is the upper limit for simming? That's a good question about response time compensation too. I hope someone with such a monitor can comment on it here.

Hey! We might be doing some good! Thanks all for the interest and replies.

Flyby out (and learning something)

CE_Mikemonster · March 2, 2009

I have a Yuraku 24" budget monitor, but with a P-MVA panel (I think - will edit when I look it up EDIT: it is P-MVA ).

Buying a new monitor is a PIA to research. When reading reviews remember to take into account that when people buy them it is nearly always as an upgrade, so their reviews WILL be sky-high!

I would have given mine 9/10 for the first three months following purchase. Now i'd give it 6/10 (but i'm content, and it's High Def).

Mine has a slight trail on the mouse cursor when on dark surfaces (but I have to concentrate to see it), and when playing rental DVD's the dark patches blur as close-up faces move, making it almost unwatchable for me (gf probs doesn't notice!). For some reason Band of Brothers on DVD didn't have any noticaeable problems, but I was watching it a few days after receiving the monitor, so possibly I didn't notice (which says it all really - what matters is YOUR perception, DON'T EVER look for faults or you'll find them!!!).

I deliberately spent £200 on something that wasn't a TN panel, based on reviews about colour quality and viewing angles, but have come to realise that a TN panel PROBABLY would have suited my needs better (the occasonal film when our old TV isn't happy, and flight simming).

I would like to point out I have NEVER owned another large LCD screen to compare this one to apart from a budget one that came with a PC World budget PC package. This was TN and it did have bad vertical viewing angles but not such that you couldn't use it for films occasionally.

If all you'll do is sit in front of it though, i'd get a high quality TN until current technology advances. Need to rush off with the gf so i'll end it there. I've been rushing so apologies for too many caps/bad grammar!

Edited March 3, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

Flyby · March 2, 2009

that was a Monster of a reply,...Mike. Point well taken on selecting the right sort of panel for one's purposes. Since my main purpose will be gaming perhaps a TN panel will better suit me. Then again, maybe I can use my "Way-Back" travel machine and find a good 26" crt monitor. Well. no. Thing probably weighs as much as a small car.

thanks again! add more when you get time!

Flyby out

BTTW-DratsaB · March 2, 2009

I read many reviews of LCD monitors before I purchased mine. But alas, I only found the best review after I bought the monitor:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/

These guys seem to do very thorough testing and give previews of backlight bleed etc. Every fault that annoys me about my monitor (most notably the inconsistent brightness from top to bottom) is mentioned in their review of the T240.

This too is my first LCD, been using CRT up to now.

Flyby · March 2, 2009

one good turnn...

hey DratsaB,

Great find, man. Here's the link for the LCD monitor Buyer's guide: Winter 2008-09from that site:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/lcd-monitor-buyers-guide-2008-2009.html

If I choose badly now that means I'm an idiot!:D

Flyby out

CE_Mikemonster · March 3, 2009

Thought i'd add some stuff in case the article didn't cover it.

Just a random consideration; HDCP.

If you intend to use a PS3 with the monitor it needs to support HDCP. I'm no expert but Blu-Ray might also need HDCP support as well. HDCP is, AFAIK, simply a code that only allows the PS3 to output digitally to a decent device - i.e. they don't wan't you to be able plug via DVI into your 16" 2003 TN panel!

Another consideration related to this is if a monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping (most cheap ones don't AFAIK). If a PS3 is used with mine, because the PS3 uses 1920x1080 the image will be stretched to fit the screen [1920x1200]. With 1:1 pixel mapping the display would instead show the correct dimensions with black bars at the top and bottom.

When buying a monitor, it's the panel that displays the image.

Quick explanation of panel types - at least 1 year old though, so ignore some references to figures such as response times.

http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php

Here's my monitor, just to give you an idea of where i'm coming from.

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=151179

Quite self explanatory, but see here for the different LCD panels on the market, their types, and their specifications:

http://lcdtech.no-ip.info/en/data/lcd.panels.in.monitors.htm

(The panel used in my specific monitor is 'm240uw01 -V3' - not apparently on there.. I'll go digging.. Edit, yup it's a AU Optronics P-MVA)

I'm saying this because manufacturers often will manufacture a monitor using several different types of panels, so it's a lottery sometimes if you want a certain type. Notice how FEW different panels there are for each screen size (consider the amount of monitors available!), especially 24" (see codes on right of the screen). There aren't many manufacturers of LCD panels.

My monitor ships with 3x different panels in, it just depends on the batch. Dell also do it with at least one of their monitors, annoying though it can be.

They will all have the same model number and barcode - it's only when you turn it on and look at the menu you can finally find out the serial number of the panel in it. For instance it's completely by chance with mine whether you get a P-MVA panel or a PVA panel etc.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the panel type though - that's only half of the story. When you go into your local TV store and see the Demo TV's, the probability is that the same size screens are using the same panels as each other - there are very few brands that actually manufacture them.

Anyway.. lol .. the 'other half' of the story is the contents behind the panel. The exact same panel can look dull from one manufacturer (for instance Sony), yet vibrant from another.

The same panel in my monitor can be found on £400+ monitors, but mine has been built to a price. Aside from cheap (but satisfactory) build quality, and lack of inputs (one VGA, one DVI), the hardware powering the screen has been compromised. I wish I could compare my trusty Yuraku to the BenQ that charges loads for the same panel just to tell you what the difference REALLY is. IMO it wouldn't be worth the extra £200, but you never know.

Another consideration, beware - manufacturers use 'overdrive' on some monitors. As far as i'm aware, this is basically overclocking the pixels, to make them respond faster. This comes at the price of lower colour quality and the risk of distorted images. AFAIK it's a compensation technology, monitors that use this are already playing catchup.

Another thing is the brightness of the monitor. AFAIK, by upping the brightness, manufacturers can provide more vibrant images.

This is great, however when you are staring at a PDF document for 2 hours learning to fly the Black Shark, it becomes very apparent that it isn't good for your eyes. When i'm surfing the net for a long time I turn my Brightness right down, so just be aware of this when comparing monitor stats. The lower the better (also in relation to other things obviously).

IMO as far as resolution goes, bigger is better. If you're worried about text appearing very small (and it will do on 1900x1200), just put the DPI up.

Like I said i've never really used a different size LCD screen, but once you 'get the bug' for high resolutions you'll wonder how you lived without it. Nothing happier than a big f**k off screen sitting on your desk :)

On the other hand you might need a new graphics card, but on games like ArmA I just turned down the graphics and stayed in native resolution, and the game still looked better than the previous high settings on a small screen.

Probably the worst written post i've ever posted. I'm sorry if i've been patronising in places but there's a helluva lot to take into consideration when buying a monitor, and talking about stuff just reminds you of even more.

I'm probably incorrect on the finer parts of technology used, and I expect to be corrected, but at least there's some food for thought! It's not an interesting subject, hence the poor arrangement of my post, but I just want you to be happy with the end product which is why i've gone on and on and on and on.. ..

I think the monitor is one thing that most people (including me) know the least about on their PC, and it's arguably the most important when playing games :)

EDIT: Just rambling on..

that was a Monster of a reply,...Mike. Point well taken on selecting the right sort of panel for one's purposes. Since my main purpose will be gaming perhaps a TN panel will better suit me. Then again, maybe I can use my "Way-Back" travel machine and find a good 26" crt monitor. Well. no. Thing probably weighs as much as a small car.
thanks again! add more when you get time!
Flyby out

No worries mate, just want you to be 100% happy when your package arrives! it's interesting that if you DID get the 26" CRT monitor for $45 off eBay it would probably perform better than a $500 LCD - but like you say you'd need to get a friend to help you move it to the computer room.

Having read the review, on page one I have to disagree with some of his points but it all depends on personal preferences. I understand he isn't reviewing the monitors in terms of a gamer looking for performance - for other users ergonomics, ease of use and (uuuurghhh..) prettiness are more important.

When looking at buying from the POV of a gamer (and not an image editor/regular user), I personally [no flaming!] would first and formost place picture quality at the top of my list. Such things as an adjustable stand are nice, but wall mounting is always an option, as well as simply placing the monitor stand on a block of wood to adjust height.

The same applies to the Bright Blue power button (mine has it!). A post-it note with key-commands and an eBay shopping list sorted that out straight away.

That was a great link to use as an overview, but i'm finding it hard to believe that there are so few good monitors on the market!

Back when I bought mine it was this or the Dell2007WFP and Dell 2008WFP (or something) and an Acer I think that were worth buying (i.e. under £300 but not a TN).

Having read that i'm promoting this monitor to a 7/10! I'm extremely happy with it!

It seems to me though that the main market that uses large monitors (over 1600x) is the image processing industry, and for them correct colour reproduction and vibrancy is more important than pixel response times.

It seems that TN has been upgraded to rival VA screens and is now 'acceptable' and as a result you can get a 24" TN screen for ~2.5x less money than a [more vibrant] VA (MVA, PVA).

IPS at the time I looked was in the upper £400 range, and not an option!

Possibly worth considering, as I mentioned, would be a TN panel built by a good, resputable company in 1920x1200 (24").

I'm solely basing this on presuming that a good TN monitor wouldn't be far off a low priced VA monitor in terms of colour reproduction, but would be better in terms of pixel response times (ghosting). I'm certainly no expert and it'd be extremely worth reading up on response times, dynamic response times, black to grey response times etc etc lol. Technology may well have improved and VA panels now able to match TN in this field, for all intents and purposes making TN redundant.

Viewing angles wouldn't be good - if you watched a film on the TN you'd probably need to tilt the screen to face you in the vertical plane (but if you have a wall-mount or good stand that's no huge deal). I'm not sure what 'bells and whistles' you'd get with an expensive TN (like extra DVI inputs, USB ports, moveable/tilting/swivelling stands), but i'd expect none with a budget VA panel.

Edited March 3, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

Zembla · March 3, 2009

Offtopic, but when I went to LCD from CRT, the crispness of the image of the LCD really win me over to the LCD side. Not to mention, staring into an LCD is much more comfortable than staring into a CRT. I don't think I would be able to go back now, everytime I look at a CRT it disappoints me :p

-Z

CE_Mikemonster · March 3, 2009

Not OT at all, good input Zembla.

Sorry for going on, i'm up for being corrected. Just thought too much info is better than too little :)

I think it's to do with CRT refresh times or something? Whilst it has no input lag or ghosting.

Having looked up my panel type, the AU Optronics M240uw01 v3 (AU-M240UW01-V3), it appears it has a pixel response time of 16ms (from off > to on > to back off).

So that's a response time of 8ms (off/on)?

Turns out that 16ms is one refresh of a CRT apparently..?

This is different from the Grey to Grey (GtoG) response time which is 6ms

A good example of different ways of measuring it I suppose, I dunno which is relevant lol, i'm sure none are universal between the manufacturers..

Edited March 3, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

Flyby · March 3, 2009

good links Mikemonster! we need all the info we can get. I hope this thread becomes a sticky so people can have the various links as a guide. Maybe we just need a sticky thread for monitor links.

Zembla, I'm still using a crt, on the wife's pc. I need the lcd info for a system I'll be building in the coming months. I need to make an educated decision.

Flyby out

ps here's a site of use, I hope:

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Sign In

about monitor performance

Recommended Posts

Flyby

crazysundog

Flyby

Zembla

Flyby

S77th-konkussion

Kuky

Flyby

Vault

BTTW-DratsaB

Flyby

CE_Mikemonster

Flyby

BTTW-DratsaB

Flyby

CE_Mikemonster

Zembla

CE_Mikemonster

Flyby

Recently Browsing 0 members