Using large screen LCD TV to play PC flight sim games

[ozTRipwiRE]

Hi everyone. I am thinking of using my large screen Digital LCD TV (around 2 years old) as a monitor to play flight sim games through my PC but am not sure if it would deteriorate the graphics at all. Would it do so? The PC is also about 2 years old. I am also planning to buy a more higher end PC to play flight sims on and plan to run it through my TV but would that provide the same picture quality as running on a good PC monitor? Any help would really be appreciated. :)

ozTRipwiRE

[cichlidfan]

That really depends on the TV but assuming it handles full HD (1920x1080) and has a reasonable response rate then it will probably do fine.

 

It is certainly worth trying out. If you don't like it then it is still a working TV.

[JG14_Smil]

I cant imagine flying with a regular monitor anymore. :)

[alexej21]

I don't a have monitor. 102cm LCD TV only.

 

I can really recommend that :thumbup:

[npole]

Problem with TV's is the resolution, they're max 1080p, and increasing the size of the screen makes the "problem" even worse.

It's not only about flying, the problem comes up when you need to identify the targets, especially if you're used to fly in CAS mission.

Sometime it's already hard to spot certain targets on the MFD in 1600p on a regular sized monitor (30") ... it would be even harder to do the same @1080p, and a much bigger screen wouldn't make it better.

On the other side TV's have a nicer size/cost ratio, you can buy a 1080p 50" TV screen today for "cheap".

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

hey, well i had to do exactly this for a while, as my monitor quit working...so a played DCS for about a month on my flat screen tv...it only supports 60Hz and is a plasma tv...

what i can say since then,...well size matters :)

it was really immersive and i really enjoyed it.so definitely worth a try i would say!

[otto]

Can you play at different resolutions than 1920 x 1080 on a Lcd, led tv? lower resolusions i mean.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

well i could change resolution just like i can with a pc monitor...you just set it up in windows and in dcs itself...no difference to a pc monitor

[dotChuckles]

Can you play at different resolutions than 1920 x 1080 on a Lcd, led tv? lower resolusions i mean.

 

Yes, but you really wouldn't want to. You will get pixel splitting and your images will look like blurry soft fuzz. Flat panels are really only ever designed to run at their native resolution.

[Highwayman-Ed]

I use a 40" Samsung LED @ 1920x1080 @60Hz and I love it and will never go back to a monitor again... As was mentioned earlier, size really does matter :)

[metalnwood]

Generally speaking, a thread like this goes that all the people who have tried using tv's like them a lot and the people that haven't tell you about resolutions and such like and how a tv could not be any good.

 

Experience says most people who try them like them. That doesn't mean everyone who actually tries it for a while will be a fan but there are a whole lot more people around who dont like them based only on theory and expectation.

[npole]

Generally speaking, a thread like this goes that all the people who have tried using tv's like them a lot and the people that haven't tell you about resolutions and such like and how a tv could not be any good.

 

Not exactly, there's so many things to consider:

 

What's your monitor resolution and its size?

What's your TV resolution and its size?

Did you owned a good monitor before the switch?

Is your TV good enough?

Can your PC sustain a certain resolution?

 

I own two 55" LCD Samsung TV's (1080p) and two Dell 30" IPS monitors (1600p).

 

The 55" TV is amazing for certain type of games, or any game where the "details" aren't that important, the size really helps to make the game more immersive (it's the same difference of watch a film on a tv or on a cinema..). But there's a downside: the dpi is much lower.

 

My Dell monitor is a way smaller of course, but the 1600p does a huge difference in terms of quality, but only where this definition can be noticed: if I play a shooter, I wouldn't probably notice it, but when I've to look at that damn pixel-sized tank in my MFD it makes a world of difference. I may love to "watch the fly" on a bigger screen, but I would never give up to the definition I have.

 

What's the solution? Multimonitor of course: the only way to maintain the definition while having a bigger size. The price to pay? Well.. it's the price itself: good quality monitors does have a cost, power PC's and gfx boards costs a lot.. and so on.

 

To resume:

 

If you have no resources to run a bigger monitor, or a surrounding (3 monitors) solution, and you're stuck with a so-and-so monitor, then looking into a TV solution could be an idea and an improvement for the immersion; but if you have enough money to spend, then there's nothing that can be compared with a good IPS monitor today in terms of image quality.

[metalnwood]

55" I think is too large, with the exception of one person I know running triple 50" screens most are running single or triple's in the 40-42" sizes.

 

I think 55" is to large because the resolution then does become more of an issue when you are sitting fairly close to a screen being used as a monitor, not a tv.

 

Most people using around the 40" mark have no issue at all, I have not heard any negatives from these people in many forums. I understand if you plugged in your home tv and didnt like it a lot at that size but for someone buying one specifically as a monitor then a tv would be a recommendation but not a 55" one.

 

I have triple 42" screens. Beats the heck out of my triple 27" monitors on my racing machine but the larger screens are more useful on the flight sim than the racing machine so thats where they stay.

[npole]

Using a 40" makes the difference even more reduced to not justify the switch especially if you have a hi-end monitor. I would never and ever trade the quality of my 30" 1600p, even in a single monitor configuration, for a 40" 1080p TV screen.

 

Again, if you own a 24" (even in triple configuration the vertical size is smaller), and the definition is not a top priority for you, then you could find an advantage in using a 40" TV screen... in any other situation a monitor is far superior.

 

If you think at it: if a TV screen is superior, don't you think that ppl would spend $400 for a 40" LCD TV, instead of $1000 for a IPS monitor? It's not that a monitor is good only for graphic softwares or to navigate the web. ;)

[tintifaxl]

For pixel sized tanks, I'd actually prefer a bigger pixel, so for me 1080 beats 1600 at the same screen size any time. But of course the difference in image quality between the cheapo tv and the dell will show.

[blkspade]

Problem with TV's is the resolution, they're max 1080p, and increasing the size of the screen makes the "problem" even worse.

It's not only about flying, the problem comes up when you need to identify the targets, especially if you're used to fly in CAS mission.

Sometime it's already hard to spot certain targets on the MFD in 1600p on a regular sized monitor (30") ... it would be even harder to do the same @1080p, and a much bigger screen wouldn't make it better.

On the other side TV's have a nicer size/cost ratio, you can buy a 1080p 50" TV screen today for "cheap".

 

Actually a larger screen at a given resolution has lower PPI, which in turn makes pixels more discern-able at a given distance. This is generally considered undesirable for various types of content, but has the benefit of actually helping you to spot targets. When I was flying on my 47" 1080P tv, those discern-able target pixels were huge. The only reason I went back to a monitor was because the layout of my room didn't allow for comfortable flying for extended periods of time. I use 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor now, but the experience on the TV was really better overall.

[npole]

Actually a larger screen at a given resolution has lower PPI, which in turn makes pixels more discern-able at a given distance

 

Eheh... in bold the difference, 1600p is incredible more detailed than 1080p. This makes a huge difference at recognize targets at distance.

 

The size is absolutely relative to your position relative to the screen: if you get closer to your screen you see a bigger image, it's that easy, while the resolution is not, it's fixed, so a 1080p screen will never look like a 1600p making the screen bigger, you're only going to magnify it, so a bunch of pixels (a possible target at distance) will not turns into a tank or a shilka, it will remains a bunch of (bigger) pixels.

[Robert1983NL]

How does a, say 30-40 inch hdtv work for other things than flightsims? Like FPS games? Or internetting? I was first thinking about a three monitor setup, but one BIG screen sounds nice as well!

[metalnwood]

If you think at it: if a TV screen is superior, don't you think that ppl would spend $400 for a 40" LCD TV, instead of $1000 for a IPS monitor? It's not that a monitor is good only for graphic softwares or to navigate the web. ;)

 

Oh Damn, game set and match then.

 

Like I say in my first post. In a thread like this there will always be a whole lot of people who think they are good and someone who goes on about theory, resolution etc.

 

At the end of the day it's personal preference and in this thread like most of the others its about 10:1 for and against ;)

[metalnwood]

How does a, say 30-40 inch hdtv work for other things than flightsims? Like FPS games? Or internetting? I was first thinking about a three monitor setup, but one BIG screen sounds nice as well!

 

On my 42" I can use it as a desktop to do the things I have to do, I.e. setup, the odd bit of browsing for finding info for troubleshooting etc. This is a dedicated machine for flying so I dont use it day to day for general things.

 

Of course when I put the screens in I tried it for FPS games. Didnt like it too much. I found the screen was too large and prefer a smaller screen for that genre of games.

[blkspade]

Eheh... in bold the difference, 1600p is incredible more detailed than 1080p. This makes a huge difference at recognize targets at distance.

 

The size is absolutely relative to your position relative to the screen: if you get closer to your screen you see a bigger image, it's that easy, while the resolution is not, it's fixed, so a 1080p screen will never look like a 1600p making the screen bigger, you're only going to magnify it, so a bunch of pixels (a possible target at distance) will not turns into a tank or a shilka, it will remains a bunch of (bigger) pixels.

 

I won't contest the obvious fact that more pixels result in a sharper image, but the pixels are still smaller and you're essentially straining your eyes. Its a large enough difference to see targets, without having to lean in or zoom limiting your overall field of view.

[npole]

I won't contest the obvious fact that more pixels result in a sharper image, but the pixels are still smaller and you're essentially straining your eyes. Its a large enough difference to see targets, without having to lean in or zoom limiting your overall field of view.

 

It's actually the opposite, a smaller screen can be placed near to you to have the same apparent size of a larger one. In example a 40" TV placed at 200cm from your eyes, has the same screen size of a 30" monitor placed at 180cm (I did not the calculation, it's just an example), with the big advantage of having a better defined image, so the target size will be the same, but will be more detailed and so you can distinguish more easily the different objects that composes an image, that is what cause the more eye straining: it's not the size (because we established that the size will be the same) but the fact that you need to strain your eyes more looking to a less defined image.

[streakeagle]

It is all personal preference. Having spent time playing with a 46" 1080p TV and 3 x 20" 1600x1200 LCD monitors, I enjoy the large screen more than the wider/hi-res view. What I like is having the game's field of view angle match my actual field of view AND have the instrument panel appear very close to life-size. I am primarily an air-to-air type of guy, so I need more look up angle rather than the typical 3 panel wide view, so I didn't find the loss of fps to drive 3 monitors very useful other than the peripheral vision enchancement for sense of speed when flying low.

 

If I had enough gpu power to have 3 panels with no loss in fps and had 3 x 46" TVs, then I would have the best of both worlds. But I think a single 55" Ultra HD ( 2160p ) TV will be my best option if I could afford the gpu upgrade and the TV: 2 x screens wide AND 2 x screens tall, both physically and in pixels.

[metalnwood]

It's actually the opposite, a smaller screen can be placed near to you to have the same apparent size of a larger one. In example a 40" TV placed at 200cm from your eyes, has the same screen size of a 30" monitor placed at 180cm (I did not the calculation, it's just an example), with the big advantage of having a better defined image, so the target size will be the same, but will be more detailed and so you can distinguish more easily the different objects that composes an image, that is what cause the more eye straining: it's not the size (because we established that the size will be the same) but the fact that you need to strain your eyes more looking to a less defined image.

 

For your example they are not the same. The tv would have a actual FOV of 26 degrees while the monitor would have a fov of around 20 degrees.

 

That is besides the point as a tv can be placed as close to you as a monitor an many people have them at a similar distance they have a monitor. In this case the TV will always give you a better real FOV which can map in to a better in game FOV.

 

No one sits 2 metres from their screen. You may as well have your example at 20M and then the comparative fov of view for them will be even closer but it wont make it any more of a useful comparison.

 

I dont know where you have got the idea that there is any eyestrain involved with any of this. Yep, that could be what happened in your experience but it's not scientific and contradicts everyone else in the thread.

 

So if its just down to personal preference why don't you just say, no its not for me but the majority of people seem happy using them. Why argue with numbers, resolutions and theories to back it up?

Edited June 6, 2013 by metalnwood

[Picksplitter]

I'm using a 32" Panasonic lcd at 1920 x 1080 and have never had an issue with it.... if I change anything it will only be to 'go bigger'! Love it and can't imagine ever going back to a 'monitor'.