User panel stuff on forum
  41 posts on 2 pages  First page12Last page
General Discussion
2014-07-16, 17:43
Member
29 posts

Registered:
Jan 2009
Hello,

i want to spend about 400EU for a new TFT. Some years ago i had a 200HZ / 200FPS CRT qw setup, so i really know how it can look. With my purchase i want at least somthing similar. On this page i got some device suggestions: http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/
so i would go for one of the 144hz tfts from asus or benq. Maybe there is a other manufacturer people can suggest, maybe i shouldnt buy asus or benq?
Please advice, many thanks for answers!
2014-07-17, 07:17
News Writer
875 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
I recently got the 27" @ 144hz from Asus after having a Samsung 22" @ 120hz. I had seen it in action already at Pericles house so I knew it was great.

It was quite a difficult transition for me. I had to go from 16:10 to 16:9 (which only works properly in ezQuake 3.0) and the size difference was huge! Fast forward 2 months and i am finally used to and adjusted to the monitor and I have gotta say it was worth the upgrade. the 27" asus is awesome.
2014-07-17, 14:49
Member
10 posts

Registered:
Jun 2014
dirtbox wrote:
16:9 (which only works properly in ezQuake 3.0)


What do you mean?
2014-07-28, 13:15
Member
198 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
Actually, is it everyone on 100+ Hz screen nowadays? I've been stuck on a 70Hz and wondering if it makes sense
2014-07-28, 16:55
Member
371 posts

Registered:
Sep 2009
Faustov wrote:
I've been stuck on a 70Hz and wondering if it makes sense

The human eye can't see anything above 75/80hz
, so anyone telling you different is gay... I'm using 85hz becouse i'm getting a little faggot nowadays (I've used 75 my whole 16 years of QW and it was perfect)

People will tell you bunch of non-sense, like: "The movements are smoother", and other gay things... But the truth is: it doesn't make a difference!

(This LCD shit, even the most expensive ones, can't beat the 0ms input-lag of a good old CRT)
(QW Nickname: AL.Kernell)
2014-07-28, 18:49
Member
286 posts

Registered:
Sep 2012
I think so Faustov, there are just some people like wernerml keeping their shitty screen in case they need an excuse when they loose
2014-07-28, 19:19
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
wernerml wrote:

The human eye can't see anything above 75/80hz[/b], so anyone telling you different is gay... I'm using 85hz becouse i'm getting a little faggot nowadays (I've used 75 my whole 16 years of QW and it was perfect)

People will tell you bunch of non-sense, like: "The movements are smoother", and other gay things... But the truth is: it doesn't make a difference!

You not being able to see/detect higher refreshrates than that does not mean noone else can. I can see the difference even between 120Hz and 144Hz not to mention 85Hz vs 144Hz so please.
Servers: Troopers
2014-07-28, 19:54
Member
382 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
wernerml wrote:
The human eye can't see anything above 75/80hz, so anyone telling you different is gay... I'm using 85hz becouse i'm getting a little faggot nowadays (I've used 75 my whole 16 years of QW and it was perfect)

People will tell you bunch of non-sense, like: "The movements are smoother", and other gay things... But the truth is: it doesn't make a difference!

(This LCD shit, even the most expensive ones, can't beat the 0ms input-lag of a good old CRT)


If the human eye couldn't see above 75Hz (at least you didn't say 24 like most people do) then it would stand to reason that you couldn't distinguish between the higher refresh rates in blind tests. That is demonstrably false. It is incredibly easy to pick out significantly higher refresh rates if you're used to playing any kind of fast-paced video game. I can even tell when my monitor is not in 120Hz mode on the windows desktop just by how smooth the mouse movement is. It's a far greater effect when you're in a game where the whole screen is changing constantly depending on your input.

As to the "0ms of input lag", it makes no sense that you would value this number but discard the refresh rate as insignificant. It is true that the phosphor dots on CRTs react faster than the liquid crystals in a 144Hz TN panel, but reponse time is not the only factor in delay. There is also the time between the frames getting updated, which is what the display frequency is measuring. With 75Hz, you are waiting 13.33ms between each frame, averaging out to 6.6ms of delay. That time is almost halved on a 144Hz monitor.
2014-07-28, 20:17
News Writer
875 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Faustov wrote:
Actually, is it everyone on 100+ Hz screen nowadays? I've been stuck on a 70Hz and wondering if it makes sense

The difference between 70hz and 120/144hz is HUGE. It is a whole new level of smoothness... I upgraded to 120 and then 144hz and i could never play on 60 or even 85hz again...
2014-07-28, 20:44
Member
198 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
Wow, I thought the impact of 120+Hz is obvious by now to everyone... My question was however, is there anyone more or less serious about qw (like div1/div2) that owns others with less than that? Sorry if that wasn't clear...

Also, wasn't anything better than 144Hz produced by now? Anything worth waiting for as in model/make perhaps?
2014-07-28, 22:10
Member
371 posts

Registered:
Sep 2009
the so-called HUGE difference (which for me is Faggot Difference), for me is ---> 60 to 70/75, it's like 39847983274 times BIGGER (difference) then to 70 to 144

what I'm saying is: The difference between 75 to 144 (for the HUMAN EYE), is like 0,0001% the size of the difference between 60 to 70.

so... SUCK IT, FAGGOTS! kkkkkkkkkkkk
(QW Nickname: AL.Kernell)
2014-07-28, 22:39
Member
371 posts

Registered:
Sep 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_lag

Analog vs digital technology

For older analog cathode ray tube (CRT) technology, display lag is extremely low, due to the nature of the technology, which does not have the ability to store image data before display. The picture signal is minimally processed internally, simply for demodulation from a radio-frequency (RF) carrier wave (for televisions), and then splitting into separate signals for the red, green, and blue electron guns, and for timing of the vertical and horizontal sync. Image adjustments typically involved reshaping the signal waveform but without storage, so the image is written to the screen as fast as it is received, with only nanoseconds of delay for the signal to traverse the wiring inside the device from input to the screen.
.....

Causes of display lag

.....
Many LCDs also use a technology called "overdrive" which buffers several frames ahead and processes the image to reduce blurring and streaks left by ghosting. The effect is that everything is displayed on the screen several frames after it was transmitted by the video source

(SO: all the NEW TECHNOLOGY and TRICKS are build to simply FAKE the smoothness... so SUCK IT you FAGGOTS!)
hahahahahahaha
(QW Nickname: AL.Kernell)
2014-07-28, 23:10
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
wernerml wrote:

so... SUCK IT, FAGGOTS! kkkkkkkkkkkk

wernerml wrote:

so SUCK IT you FAGGOTS!
hahahahahahaha

Ok that's quite enough. Your continuous outbursts have earned you one week vacation.
Servers: Troopers
2014-07-28, 23:16
Member
371 posts

Registered:
Sep 2009
Renzo wrote:
Ok that's quite enough. Your continuous outbursts have earned you one week vacation.

OK, i'm sorry I'm beeing rude and offensive.
But I feel very sorry for people who spend huge amounts of money thinking it will be better, when it will NOT. (also, and most important: I feel MAD when they encourage others to buy)

Ok, I would buy a 144hz LCD if I had money, and be very happy with it (thinking about the "smoothness" and quality of the image, etc..etc..etc..)
But I will remain confident that the old CRT is FASTER!
(QW Nickname: AL.Kernell)
2014-07-28, 23:40
Administrator
2046 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
I use a 120Hz TFT (BenQ XL2420T) and although it has been a long time since i last played on a CRT, i can't imagine CRT being better than this. It is definitely worth getting a good TFT to get rid of any bulky CRT one might have. The TFT i have from BenQ is good but is a few years old now - i'm sure there are even better ones available today.

With that said, ALL TFT's aren't good though but with a budget of 400 euro you're definitely safe if you do some research before.
www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
2014-07-29, 02:16
Member
48 posts

Registered:
Mar 2011
Renzo wrote:
wernerml wrote:

The human eye can't see anything above 75/80hz[/b], so anyone telling you different is gay... I'm using 85hz becouse i'm getting a little faggot nowadays (I've used 75 my whole 16 years of QW and it was perfect)

People will tell you bunch of non-sense, like: "The movements are smoother", and other gay things... But the truth is: it doesn't make a difference!

You not being able to see/detect higher refreshrates than that does not mean noone else can. I can see the difference even between 120Hz and 144Hz not to mention 85Hz vs 144Hz so please.


Yes. I can see the difference as well, swear god. So much more smoothness. Maybe there's something to do with neuro cinetics or some shit.
Amd Phenom II x4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz : Corsair Vengeance 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz : MSI GeForce N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II 1GB : benQ XL2410T LED 23.6" 1920x1080 120hz 2ms : Microsoft Explorer 3
2014-07-29, 08:18
News Writer
875 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
wernerml wrote:
But I feel very sorry for people who spend huge amounts of money thinking it will be better, when it will NOT. (also, and most important: I feel MAD when they encourage others to buy)

Ok, I would buy a 144hz LCD if I had money, and be very happy with it (thinking about the "smoothness" and quality of the image, etc..etc..etc..)
But I will remain confident that the old CRT is FASTER!

I think you are the single only person that doesn't see a difference between 70hz and 120/144hz. My whole life I played on 85hz CRT before moving to Europe. Here I started with a 60hz screen and it was really unplayable. I even found 75hz unplayable and i played like this for over 6 months. When I finally got a 120hz the difference was HUGE (and everyone else agrees, only you dont agree). After this Pericles then showed me his 144hz monitor and that was even better so I upgraded again and the difference is amazing.

Tell me, have you ever even played on 144hz?
2014-07-29, 08:27
Member
286 posts

Registered:
Sep 2012
Faustov wrote:
Wow, I thought the impact of 120+Hz is obvious by now to everyone... My question was however, is there anyone more or less serious about qw (like div1/div2) that owns others with less than that? Sorry if that wasn't clear...

I don't think so, there is another topic on 120/144hz monitors and I all good players are on new 144hz screens ( most of them on the asus VG248QE now I think )

Faustov wrote:
Also, wasn't anything better than 144Hz produced by now? Anything worth waiting for as in model/make perhaps?
Eizo made a "240hz" monitor, but it's fake 240hz, so 144 is still the best nowadays. And it gets cheaper.
2014-07-29, 09:03
Member
198 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
Jissse wrote:
Faustov wrote:
Wow, I thought the impact of 120+Hz is obvious by now to everyone... My question was however, is there anyone more or less serious about qw (like div1/div2) that owns others with less than that? Sorry if that wasn't clear...

I don't think so, there is another topic on 120/144hz monitors and I all good players are on new 144hz screens ( most of them on the asus VG248QE now I think )

Faustov wrote:
Also, wasn't anything better than 144Hz produced by now? Anything worth waiting for as in model/make perhaps?
Eizo made a "240hz" monitor, but it's fake 240hz, so 144 is still the best nowadays. And it gets cheaper.


Thanks Jissse! Now I can tell my wife I'm buing something I actually need As for the EIZO 240 - I saw that, yeah, plus it costs... Likewise CRT - you can still get them and they ARE faster, but the size...

Finally, what of non-TN matrix 144Hz? There are a few like IPS instead of TN used giving much better color, but everyone seems to be getting TN for gaming - do you know anyone with IPS? Would it be faster or slower if we disregard the color quality?
2014-07-29, 09:32
News Writer
875 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Faustov wrote:
Finally, what of non-TN matrix 144Hz? There are a few like IPS instead of TN used giving much better color, but everyone seems to be getting TN for gaming - do you know anyone with IPS? Would it be faster or slower if we disregard the color quality?

From what I understand there are no IPS which are really suitable for gaming in the same way as a TN panel just because of their delay in updating. If, however, IPS has improved to gaming standards then I would love to see it!
2014-07-29, 12:51
Member
198 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
Hmm you are right, the ones I've read about were actually not-proper-IPS, EIZO got closest to something that is still worse than the typical 144 Asus.

Nevertheless this reminds me about the other thing recently released: G-sync. Asus is now selling monitors with gsync installed and they are compatible with most cards. Has anyone tried them in QW? Example: http://overlordcomputer.com/products/asus-vg248qe-g-sync
2014-07-29, 15:39
News Writer
619 posts

Registered:
Nov 2008
Wow, werner~ you really need to get yourself a 144hz so you get the slightest idea of what people here are even talking about.

Personally I have the Asus VG248QE and it's great. I've never experienced such smoothness in games, as my old CRT wasn't that great.
2014-07-29, 16:35
News Writer
875 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Andeh wrote:
Wow, werner~ you really need to get yourself a 144hz so you get the slightest idea of what people here are even talking about.

Agreed! The difference is massive. It is just like people cannot see 1001fps but It is sure has hell smoother than 77fps.
2014-07-29, 23:49
Member
234 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
I'm still on my old crt lurq gave me, 160hz for the winz0r :>
2014-07-30, 03:25
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Feb 2011
Faustov wrote:
Nevertheless this reminds me about the other thing recently released: G-sync. Asus is now selling monitors with gsync installed and they are compatible with most cards. Has anyone tried them in QW? Example: http://overlordcomputer.com/products/asus-vg248qe-g-sync


I bought the G-Sync hardware mod from Nvidia a few months ago for my Asus vg248qe, which means I had to open up my monitor and mod it myself. Unfortunately, when I put it in "Gsync" mode in the Nvidia control panel, every 30-60 seconds there is an "fps lag" where ezq freezes for a split second. In between the spikes, it works fine although it is limited to 144 fps (no matter what maxfps is set to, as expected from the technology).

I tried ezq 2.2 and the latest 3.0 alpha and they both behave the same. Limited testing on new games shows no problems. I haven't really tried it in a few months, I'm basically using the normal (non G-sync) mode on the monitor all the time.
2014-07-30, 08:33
Member
198 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
BLooD_DoG wrote:

I bought the G-Sync hardware mod from Nvidia a few months ago for my Asus vg248qe, which means I had to open up my monitor and mod it myself. Unfortunately, when I put it in "Gsync" mode in the Nvidia control panel, every 30-60 seconds there is an "fps lag" where ezq freezes for a split second. In between the spikes, it works fine although it is limited to 144 fps (no matter what maxfps is set to, as expected from the technology).


Thanks for the input! Do you think your kit could be damaged? From what I gathered it is supposed to be like double/tripple buffering to synchronize refresh rate with frame rate, but without the lag required to achieve that. Any spikes make it sound like a mistake... Do you know perhaps anyone for whom it worked?
2014-07-30, 16:12
Member
188 posts

Registered:
Feb 2011
I don't think my kit is damaged since it was working fine with other (newer) games on Windows, at least with my limited testing. Maybe they are all directX and ezquake is openGL? Beats me. I could also try newer nvidia drivers since perhaps there was a bug fix, but I think I'm already using very recent drivers.

I don't know anyone else with G-Sync unfortunately :S
2014-07-30, 18:03
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
BLooD_DoG wrote:

I don't know anyone else with G-Sync unfortunately :S

I will be testing this monitor a bit later:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg278q.htm

27" 144Hz thingy with G-sync support and nice resolution. According to the test, it seems to be "the best possible" gaming monitor at the moment.
Servers: Troopers
2014-07-30, 18:30
Administrator
1022 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
BLooD_DoG wrote:
I don't think my kit is damaged since it was working fine with other (newer) games on Windows, at least with my limited testing. Maybe they are all directX and ezquake is openGL? Beats me. I could also try newer nvidia drivers since perhaps there was a bug fix, but I think I'm already using very recent drivers.

I don't know anyone else with G-Sync unfortunately :S

Make sure threaded optimization is turned off. Bah, forgot to read but if you're using win7 try to turn off MMCS service.
2014-07-30, 23:26
Member
48 posts

Registered:
Mar 2011
Ake Vader wrote:
I use a 120Hz TFT (BenQ XL2420T) and although it has been a long time since i last played on a CRT, i can't imagine CRT being better than this. It is definitely worth getting a good TFT to get rid of any bulky CRT one might have. The TFT i have from BenQ is good but is a few years old now - i'm sure there are even better ones available today.

With that said, ALL TFT's aren't good though but with a budget of 400 euro you're definitely safe if you do some research before.


I also have a 23.6" benQ XL2410T with 1920x1080 120hz 2ms. It is really a massive difference to lower frequencies. Sometimes I can even notice the flicker of a 60hz fluorescent lamp hehe.
Amd Phenom II x4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz : Corsair Vengeance 2x4GB DDR3 1600MHz : MSI GeForce N560GTX-Ti Twin Frozr II 1GB : benQ XL2410T LED 23.6" 1920x1080 120hz 2ms : Microsoft Explorer 3
  41 posts on 2 pages  First page12Last page