If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LCD Monitor Recommendations
I'm looking to buy a 17 or 19 inch LCD monitor which must, amongst other
things, be good for use with FSCOS. Does anybody have any recommendations? Cheers Sean Mc |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Sean McCarney" wrote in message
... I'm looking to buy a 17 or 19 inch LCD monitor which must, amongst other things, be good for use with FSCOS. Does anybody have any recommendations? What's your budget? What resolution are you looking for? Do you need DVI input? I really like my Viewsonic VX2000, so I can recommend that one. But without knowing more specifics about what you want/need/can afford, it's not possible to offer any sort of useful recommendations. Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Budget no problem (wife's approval obtained!) DVI input wanted, resolution
1025x768 minimum (but all I have is a 15 inch CRT so maybe a higher res would be better - advice accepted!). What I have been concerned about is the refresh/update rate which according to the PC Mags is the decideing factor in order to avoid blurring on games. Sean "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Sean McCarney" wrote in message ... I'm looking to buy a 17 or 19 inch LCD monitor which must, amongst other things, be good for use with FSCOS. Does anybody have any recommendations? What's your budget? What resolution are you looking for? Do you need DVI input? I really like my Viewsonic VX2000, so I can recommend that one. But without knowing more specifics about what you want/need/can afford, it's not possible to offer any sort of useful recommendations. Pete |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Sean McCarney" wrote in message
... Budget no problem (wife's approval obtained!) DVI input wanted, resolution 1025x768 minimum (but all I have is a 15 inch CRT so maybe a higher res would be better - advice accepted!). IMHO, if budget is no problem, go for a high-end one. Of course, any LCD monitor will be an improvement over your current CRT. What I have been concerned about is the refresh/update rate which according to the PC Mags is the decideing factor in order to avoid blurring on games. Lots of people have said LCD's are terrible for games because of the low refresh rates and image latency. I guess that's subjective, but LCD's are pretty good these days, and I think games look great on them. The VS2000 has a response time of 25 ms, which is a little longer than the 17 ms it takes to show a frame at 60 Hz (the refresh rate of pretty much every LCD monitor), but whatever blurring is present isn't noticeable to me. If anything, the smearing is just enough to smooth out the image a bit, which in MSFS makes the view look a little more realistic. The VX2000 is 1600x1200 which is, IMHO, much nicer for games than 1024x768. However, you'll need suitable hardware to get decent framerates at that resolution. But the latest generation or so of PCs and video cards should be able to handle that just fine. Samsung also makes some nice high-res LCD monitors. Some are actually in their "multi-function" line, which means they also have S-video and composite inputs, among other things. Their SyncMaster 241MP has a 16:9 aspect ratio, with 1920x1200 resolution. I've always thought a wide-screen monitor would be good for games. Though, many games don't support wide-screen formats anyway, so it's kind of hit-and-miss. If you want to go with the safer 4:3 aspect ratio, their SyncMaster 211MP is basically the same, but with a 1600x1200 resolution instead. For just a straight computer monitor, the 240T is their 1920x1200 widescreen monitor, while their 210T and 213T monitors are 1600x1200. I haven't actually used the Samsungs, so I can only really recommend the Viewsonic. Actually, the Viewsonic has slightly better contrast than the Samsung monitors do, but I don't know how significant that is. By the way, I did a quick Google search, and came across this article: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1 It has a really great summary of the various pros and cons for LCD monitors that I think anyone who hasn't used one yet ought to read before buying one. In particular, they mention a couple of the big issues with LCD monitors: running at any resolution other than the monitor's "native" resolution won't look very good (don't bother with an LCD monitor unless either a) you need the desktop space, or b) you are prepared to run as much of your software as possible at just the one resolution; also, there are almost always a handful of "bad pixels" (monitor manufacturers and/or retailers usually have some maximum number of bad pixels that they consider acceptable, and unless the number exceeds that limit, you can't return the monitor simply because of bad pixels). Anyway, I hope that general information is useful. I bought the Viewsonic because of its excellent performance specifications (low response time, high contrast) and relatively good price (it was the least-expensive 1600x1200 LCD I could find at the time). I'm extremely happy with it, and think games play great on it (I've played all sorts using it: MSFS of course, Combat Flight Sim, Neverwinter Nights, Asheron's Call, Rise of Nations, MechWarrior, Half Life, just to name a few). The only gotcha was that I live in what might be considered a high-RF-interference area (a block away from an AM radio station) and it interferes with the touch-sensitive buttons that control the monitor. But most people wouldn't have to worry about that. There are, of course, numerous other manufacturers selling LCD monitors. Sony, NEC, Gateway, Dell, among others. I recommend 1600x1200 resolution, but if you're willing to go with a 1280x1024 or 1024x768, those are still significantly less expensive right now. But since budget's not a problem, you'll probably want to go with one of the high-resolution displays. Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pete,
Thanks, that gives me a lot to be going on with...... Sean "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Sean McCarney" wrote in message ... Budget no problem (wife's approval obtained!) DVI input wanted, resolution 1025x768 minimum (but all I have is a 15 inch CRT so maybe a higher res would be better - advice accepted!). IMHO, if budget is no problem, go for a high-end one. Of course, any LCD monitor will be an improvement over your current CRT. What I have been concerned about is the refresh/update rate which according to the PC Mags is the decideing factor in order to avoid blurring on games. Lots of people have said LCD's are terrible for games because of the low refresh rates and image latency. I guess that's subjective, but LCD's are pretty good these days, and I think games look great on them. The VS2000 has a response time of 25 ms, which is a little longer than the 17 ms it takes to show a frame at 60 Hz (the refresh rate of pretty much every LCD monitor), but whatever blurring is present isn't noticeable to me. If anything, the smearing is just enough to smooth out the image a bit, which in MSFS makes the view look a little more realistic. The VX2000 is 1600x1200 which is, IMHO, much nicer for games than 1024x768. However, you'll need suitable hardware to get decent framerates at that resolution. But the latest generation or so of PCs and video cards should be able to handle that just fine. Samsung also makes some nice high-res LCD monitors. Some are actually in their "multi-function" line, which means they also have S-video and composite inputs, among other things. Their SyncMaster 241MP has a 16:9 aspect ratio, with 1920x1200 resolution. I've always thought a wide-screen monitor would be good for games. Though, many games don't support wide-screen formats anyway, so it's kind of hit-and-miss. If you want to go with the safer 4:3 aspect ratio, their SyncMaster 211MP is basically the same, but with a 1600x1200 resolution instead. For just a straight computer monitor, the 240T is their 1920x1200 widescreen monitor, while their 210T and 213T monitors are 1600x1200. I haven't actually used the Samsungs, so I can only really recommend the Viewsonic. Actually, the Viewsonic has slightly better contrast than the Samsung monitors do, but I don't know how significant that is. By the way, I did a quick Google search, and came across this article: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1 It has a really great summary of the various pros and cons for LCD monitors that I think anyone who hasn't used one yet ought to read before buying one. In particular, they mention a couple of the big issues with LCD monitors: running at any resolution other than the monitor's "native" resolution won't look very good (don't bother with an LCD monitor unless either a) you need the desktop space, or b) you are prepared to run as much of your software as possible at just the one resolution; also, there are almost always a handful of "bad pixels" (monitor manufacturers and/or retailers usually have some maximum number of bad pixels that they consider acceptable, and unless the number exceeds that limit, you can't return the monitor simply because of bad pixels). Anyway, I hope that general information is useful. I bought the Viewsonic because of its excellent performance specifications (low response time, high contrast) and relatively good price (it was the least-expensive 1600x1200 LCD I could find at the time). I'm extremely happy with it, and think games play great on it (I've played all sorts using it: MSFS of course, Combat Flight Sim, Neverwinter Nights, Asheron's Call, Rise of Nations, MechWarrior, Half Life, just to name a few). The only gotcha was that I live in what might be considered a high-RF-interference area (a block away from an AM radio station) and it interferes with the touch-sensitive buttons that control the monitor. But most people wouldn't have to worry about that. There are, of course, numerous other manufacturers selling LCD monitors. Sony, NEC, Gateway, Dell, among others. I recommend 1600x1200 resolution, but if you're willing to go with a 1280x1024 or 1024x768, those are still significantly less expensive right now. But since budget's not a problem, you'll probably want to go with one of the high-resolution displays. Pete |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:21:49 +0000 (UTC), "Sean McCarney"
wrote: Pete, Thanks, that gives me a lot to be going on with...... I'm using an NEC MultiSync LCD1760v. The resolution is 1280 X 1024 and on a 17 inch screen I don't see any difference going to a higher resolution. I also use it for photo editing. I've only run MSFS 2004 a couple of times now, but after doing a short hop flying the Beech Baron from the local airport (3BS) where I'm based to the bigger airport next door (MBS) I saw no problems with the refresh. I have no problems with RF and this computer sets within 5 feet of a 1500 watt output HF amplifier (1.8 through 30 MHz), 3 feet from a pair of 50 watt 144 and 440 MHz rigs, and 4 feet from a 100 watt 50 MHz rig which gets used a lot. "In my opinion" the 17" has almost as much useful area as my 19" CRTs which are flat screens and I'd really like to set the thing up using 3 of these 17 inchers for a realistic view. Currently there are a good number of 17s on the market that cost less than what I paid for the 19" CRTs just a couple of years ago. Of course if money is no object there are the 21 inch plasma displays. Using three of those in a panoramic display would sure be realistic. and cost about seven or eight grand. Good Luck, Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) Sean "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Sean McCarney" wrote in message ... Budget no problem (wife's approval obtained!) DVI input wanted, resolution 1025x768 minimum (but all I have is a 15 inch CRT so maybe a higher res would be better - advice accepted!). IMHO, if budget is no problem, go for a high-end one. Of course, any LCD monitor will be an improvement over your current CRT. What I have been concerned about is the refresh/update rate which according to the PC Mags is the decideing factor in order to avoid blurring on games. Lots of people have said LCD's are terrible for games because of the low refresh rates and image latency. I guess that's subjective, but LCD's are pretty good these days, and I think games look great on them. The VS2000 has a response time of 25 ms, which is a little longer than the 17 ms it takes to show a frame at 60 Hz (the refresh rate of pretty much every LCD monitor), but whatever blurring is present isn't noticeable to me. If anything, the smearing is just enough to smooth out the image a bit, which in MSFS makes the view look a little more realistic. The VX2000 is 1600x1200 which is, IMHO, much nicer for games than 1024x768. However, you'll need suitable hardware to get decent framerates at that resolution. But the latest generation or so of PCs and video cards should be able to handle that just fine. Samsung also makes some nice high-res LCD monitors. Some are actually in their "multi-function" line, which means they also have S-video and composite inputs, among other things. Their SyncMaster 241MP has a 16:9 aspect ratio, with 1920x1200 resolution. I've always thought a wide-screen monitor would be good for games. Though, many games don't support wide-screen formats anyway, so it's kind of hit-and-miss. If you want to go with the safer 4:3 aspect ratio, their SyncMaster 211MP is basically the same, but with a 1600x1200 resolution instead. For just a straight computer monitor, the 240T is their 1920x1200 widescreen monitor, while their 210T and 213T monitors are 1600x1200. I haven't actually used the Samsungs, so I can only really recommend the Viewsonic. Actually, the Viewsonic has slightly better contrast than the Samsung monitors do, but I don't know how significant that is. By the way, I did a quick Google search, and came across this article: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1 It has a really great summary of the various pros and cons for LCD monitors that I think anyone who hasn't used one yet ought to read before buying one. In particular, they mention a couple of the big issues with LCD monitors: running at any resolution other than the monitor's "native" resolution won't look very good (don't bother with an LCD monitor unless either a) you need the desktop space, or b) you are prepared to run as much of your software as possible at just the one resolution; also, there are almost always a handful of "bad pixels" (monitor manufacturers and/or retailers usually have some maximum number of bad pixels that they consider acceptable, and unless the number exceeds that limit, you can't return the monitor simply because of bad pixels). Anyway, I hope that general information is useful. I bought the Viewsonic because of its excellent performance specifications (low response time, high contrast) and relatively good price (it was the least-expensive 1600x1200 LCD I could find at the time). I'm extremely happy with it, and think games play great on it (I've played all sorts using it: MSFS of course, Combat Flight Sim, Neverwinter Nights, Asheron's Call, Rise of Nations, MechWarrior, Half Life, just to name a few). The only gotcha was that I live in what might be considered a high-RF-interference area (a block away from an AM radio station) and it interferes with the touch-sensitive buttons that control the monitor. But most people wouldn't have to worry about that. There are, of course, numerous other manufacturers selling LCD monitors. Sony, NEC, Gateway, Dell, among others. I recommend 1600x1200 resolution, but if you're willing to go with a 1280x1024 or 1024x768, those are still significantly less expensive right now. But since budget's not a problem, you'll probably want to go with one of the high-resolution displays. Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|