Switched to a LCD and now I'mm owned in BF2 ? ( 2 Views )

no kitty!

I went from a 19" Veiw Sonic CRT to a Acer AL2016w (20") and for the past couple nights of playing BF2 I'm getting smoked !

I'm using a MX518 as well ;)

I'm playing at same res with same refresh rate, FWIW.

For some reason when I target someone (doesnt matter what gun), I cannot get a clean headshot ?

I could be laying on the ground with the guy I'm shooting at prone as well, and its as if the crosshairs are on the guy, but its not doing the damage of usual headshot ?

Playing on the same server with about the same ping, under 100 or so.

V-Sync turned off as well.

Is there and adjustment or something I'm missing with LCD ? Is the 8ms response time that bad ?

I played with setting on the mouse since this is widescreen :0

***I'm not a noober at BF2 either, I'm a 1 star general ;)

Any help ?

(ali, Saint Lucia)

It's most likely a combination of widescreen + response time + input lag and of course + ping that is causing your difficulties in aiming. Unfortunately LCD tech is no where near as good as CRT tech when it comes to fast FPS games. Just be thankful that your eyesight, electricity bill, and desk are all benefitting more now that you've switched. (this is how I have to look at it...after 6+ years of CRT'elite'ism I settled on a 19" 2ms LCD ** after trying out 5 different models in the past)

(çisem, Christmas Island)

Thanks for the fast reply BM400 ~ :)

I was told that CRTs are better for gaming, but I was like:

"How bad could it be ?"

Well now I know !, This sux balls :(

Would a 2ms be that much better then the 8ms I have now ?

(mehmet, Saint Pierre and Miquelon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 302efi (Post 1031826951)

Would a 2ms be that much better then the 8ms I have now ?

not much better.

use crt for FPS and fighting games. widescreen LCD for RTS.

(ebru, Taiwan, Province of China)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 302efi (Post 1031826892)

I'm playing at same res with same refresh rate, FWIW.

Uh... you shouldn't be. The two monitors don't have the same aspect ratio, so the proportions are going to be screwed up on one or the other if you're using the same resolution.

If you can't run your LCD's native res, try to use one with the same ratio from this list.

(bayram, Antarctica)

To the OP: Did you manually change the game's resolution to your monitor's native res? Go to your shortcut and change its properties' Target line to:

X:\Games\BF2142\BF2142.exe +menu 1 +widescreen 1 +szx 1680 +szy 1050

That's assuming that monitor is 1680x1050. Stretches it out a bit, and if you're not used to it it may take time to adjust, but will fill your screen at least. EA doesn't support WS in the BF series due to "unfair advantage", so your actual FOV won't change.

(Davut, Malawi)

it took me a few weeks to adjust to an LCD screen, give it time.

(nurhayat, Nigeria)

Response time has EVERYTHING to do with this.

I've owned a ton of different LCDs and CRTs. I've had the fastest LCD out there (Viewsonic VX922) and I've had some slow one's. I cannot play on an 8ms LCD. It makes me sick to watch it, it's so slow. Samsung's 5ms 204B and my new 245BW 24" WS are very fast LCDs (the fastest for their size.) This makes all the difference (for me) in fragging and whatnot. YMMV

(bilal, American Samoa)

man...
After 2 years on a LCD I would NEVER EVER go back to a CRT.
1- IT's fucking butt ugly
2- Takes alot of space
3- Heat HEAT HHHHHEEEEEAAAAAT.

Anyway... I have no problem owning in COD4, BF2 or any FPS you throw at me, maybe you have to get used to the LCD but in the long run, it's the same thing.

(hazal, Fiji)

Thanks for the info guys !

Native resolution1680x1050

The reason I went with the same res was because I tried the native res at first and it wasnt working out to well. I was getting fragged over and over, so I figured maybe it was the res I was playing at. I thought that the higher res was throwing off my targeting.

Not sure where to go from here. I may hook the CRT back up and see what happens. I also had to turn down the brightness on the LCD. As vivid as the colors were/are, it was taking its toll on my eyes.The increase in desk space is a plus, but if I can't frag away at my usual games, this is going back ! :D

For instance, I got a couple emails from a couple clan memeber asking me, WTF I was doing and it I let someone else use my computer/BF2 account :p

(yaren, Bangladesh)

I've been on a 20" Dell 2005FPW 1680x1050 12ms/16ms LCD for about 3.75 years now, absolutely never have had an issue with the response time being a limiting factor on my aim or anything like that. Probably just you were worried and expecting that it might be worse, and are thinking it is due to your expectations. That, or your aspect ratio is messed up/wrong/something else.

(göksel, Comoros)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 302efi (Post 1031828881)

Thanks for the info guys !

Native resolution1680x1050

The reason I went with the same res was because I tried the native res at first and it wasnt working out to well. I was getting fragged over and over, so I figured maybe it was the res I was playing at. I thought that the higher res was throwing off my targeting.

Not sure where to go from here. I may hook the CRT back up and see what happens. I also had to turn down the brightness on the LCD. As vivid as the colors were/are, it was taking its toll on my eyes.The increase in desk space is a plus, but if I can't frag away at my usual games, this is going back ! :D

For instance, I got a couple emails from a couple clan memeber asking me, WTF I was doing and it I let someone else use my computer/BF2 account :p

Change it back to the native res and take some time to get used to it. Once you adjust to the differences you should start getting better again.

(çaðlar, Niue)

LCD helped my game in Halo 1 and Counter Strike: Source.

1440 x 900 @ 75hz. Works much better than my CRT @ 16x12 @ 75.

(gözde, Sri Lanka)

Just a quick question since OP mentions refresh rates. What's refresh rate for LCDs generally? I'm using a CRT and the lowest i can stand to go is 85 hz.

(yasin, Wallis and Futuna)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aguydude (Post 1031829773)

Just a quick question since OP mentions refresh rates. What's refresh rate for LCDs generally? I'm using a CRT and the lowest i can stand to go is 85 hz.

They don't have refresh rates in the classic sense that would cause flickering on a CRT, so you would be fine with any LCD in that regard.

(asi, Andorra)

On my old Samsung LCD, I found that using anything above 60Hz would give me a blurry picture. However, because of the way LCDs work, low refresh rates don't hurt your eyes since instead of rescanning the entire picture, they only change one pixel at a time. Plus, any LCD running through DVI is limited to 60Hz anyway. I suggest you stick with 60Hz.

(rabia, Niger)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zero82z (Post 1031830249)

Plus, any LCD running through DVI is limited to 60Hz anyway. I suggest you stick with 60Hz.

Is this true?

I have the option for 85Hz on my refresh rate with a Viewsonic VA1912wb on DVI.

EDIT: I stand corrected, just checked and I no longer have 85Hz, just 59 and 60. It was probably a driver bug with my old X800XT card.

(tarýk, Thailand)

a LOT of people confuse input lag with response time. THEY ARE NOT the same thing.
2ms and 5 or 8 ms response time that you are talking about means nothing to your game play besides ghosting which you shouldn't see.

check out http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1245932

this list the input lag of a lot of models, I did not see yours listed but there are also links to sights that check this.

There are models with 5ms up to 40 and 50ms which is 1/2 second. This will get you killed real quick.

The fastest listed is the 245B from samsung with 5ms.
Right now at CC the 245BW is on sale but I am not sure if they are the same thing.

Hope someone can tell you more

=======================
ps want to add this...you said head shots with another guy lying down...since he was not moving and you missed....that is typical BF2 bs

(bahar, Guyana)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparks (Post 1031831238)

There are models with 5ms up to 40 and 50ms which is 1/2 second.

500ms is 1/2 a second ;)

(Captain, Jordan)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparks (Post 1031831238)

a LOT of people confuse input lag with response time. THEY ARE NOT the same thing.
2ms and 5 or 8 ms response time that you are talking about means nothing to your game play besides ghosting which you shouldn't see.

check out http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1245932

this list the input lag of a lot of models, I did not see yours listed but there are also links to sights that check this.

There are models with 5ms up to 40 and 50ms which is 1/2 second. This will get you killed real quick.

The fastest listed is the 245B from samsung with 5ms.
Right now at CC the 245BW is on sale but I am not sure if they are the same thing.

Hope someone can tell you more

=======================
ps want to add this...you said head shots with another guy lying down...since he was not moving and you missed....that is typical BF2 bs

50 ms does not equal 1/2 second...

(samed, Equatorial Guinea)

Let's clear the air here about response time and input lag.

First it's INPUT LAG that is hurting his head shots. Not response time.

Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to go from either gray to gray or from black to white or simply from color to color. The spec isn't really a spec, so the LCD manufacturers play around with this number depending on which is fastest for their marketing needs. This response time is responsible for the ghosting effect or "trails" you see on screen. Say you have a race car running across the screen, after the initial image, you will have some "blurring" after the car has passed the area. That's because the pixels aren't fast enough to change to a different color yet. Basically for most of today's LCD screen's this is barely noticeable and doesn't really affect your gameplay too much, just as a distraction.

Input lag is an entirely different beast. This is NOT disclosed by LCD monitor manufacturers. In fact, the more "features" you have to clean the image, add contrast or "remove" ghosting and the more potential for input lag. Input lag works like this, you make a movement on screen say from point a to point b to point c very quickly. The monitor will still be drawing your image at point b while you've already moved your mouse to point c. That's input lag. The time difference between the action you take and what you see on screen varies from monitor to monitor. Since no website or forum member has shown a 0 ms, multiple timer, extensive test of a supposed no input lag screen, we'll have to go on the basis that every LCD at this point has input lag. The only way to prove there is no input lag is to take 1 signal input and split it among 2 screens, 1 CRT and 1 LCD. Clone mode testing has shown that video cards "alternate" between screens to give the illusion of no input lag.

Input lag ranges from screen to screen, some under 20ms, some hitting under 10ms, some going as high as 80ms. Every 16.7ms~ is approx. 1 fps. Depending on the game, 1 fps is enough to screw up timing. Let alone 50ms. Let's put it this way, not only in a multiplayer game is the game compensating for a 30ms ping difference, (15ms to server, 15 ms back), you now have a delay in your image that is not consistent. Sometimes the input lag is under 10ms, sometimes over 20ms. That's what makes compensating for input lag very difficult. If it was always just 1 fps missing, it'd be as simple as unconsciously shooting at the chin instead of the forehead. You'd make that adjustment without even really thinking about it.

(tarkan, Swaziland)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slade (Post 1031831534)

Let's clear the air here about response time and input lag.

First it's INPUT LAG that is hurting his head shots. Not response time.

Response time is the time it takes for a pixel to go from either gray to gray or from black to white or simply from color to color. The spec isn't really a spec, so the LCD manufacturers play around with this number depending on which is fastest for their marketing needs. This response time is responsible for the ghosting effect or "trails" you see on screen. Say you have a race car running across the screen, after the initial image, you will have some "blurring" after the car has passed the area. That's because the pixels aren't fast enough to change to a different color yet. Basically for most of today's LCD screen's this is barely noticeable and doesn't really affect your gameplay too much, just as a distraction.

Input lag is an entirely different beast. This is NOT disclosed by LCD monitor manufacturers. In fact, the more "features" you have to clean the image, add contrast or "remove" ghosting and the more potential for input lag. Input lag works like this, you make a movement on screen say from point a to point b to point c very quickly. The monitor will still be drawing your image at point b while you've already moved your mouse to point c. That's input lag. The time difference between the action you take and what you see on screen varies from monitor to monitor. Since no website or forum member has shown a 0 ms, multiple timer, extensive test of a supposed no input lag screen, we'll have to go on the basis that every LCD at this point has input lag. The only way to prove there is no input lag is to take 1 signal input and split it among 2 screens, 1 CRT and 1 LCD. Clone mode testing has shown that video cards "alternate" between screens to give the illusion of no input lag.

Input lag ranges from screen to screen, some under 20ms, some hitting under 10ms, some going as high as 80ms. Every 16.7ms~ is approx. 1 fps. Depending on the game, 1 fps is enough to screw up timing. Let alone 50ms. Let's put it this way, not only in a multiplayer game is the game compensating for a 30ms ping difference, (15ms to server, 15 ms back), you now have a delay in your image that is not consistent. Sometimes the input lag is under 10ms, sometimes over 20ms. That's what makes compensating for input lag very difficult. If it was always just 1 fps missing, it'd be as simple as unconsciously shooting at the chin instead of the forehead. You'd make that adjustment without even really thinking about it.

i think that would be true for any monitor, not just lcd

(mustafa, Angola)

Play me BF2 and you will win hands down. I'm slo slo.:o

(yusuf, Russian Federation)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pstang (Post 1031831814)

i think that would be true for any monitor, not just lcd

No, it is especially true of LCDs, in fact input lag is a large issue for even console gamers and HDTVs and there are articles published by it. CRTs are not affected by this issue since they are analog and need none of these features. LCDs have these additional features to improve image quality based on the shortcomings on LCD technology but can cause substantial lag in certain models.

http://gear.ign.com/articles/720/720303p1.html

(zeynel, Armenia)

Yeah...the unfortunate thing is that the truly fast panels (atm) are still TN. I'm talking 10ms or less input lag. If you want your pretty *VA/IPS, in general it's gonna cost you considerably in input lag. The Planar is an exception, but its $1k price-tag is its downfall.
I believe over time, you will get used to it - as I have, but it will take quite a lot of time, and even after being accustomed to it, it will annoy you to no end.

E.g. I'm playing TF2 quite a bit these days. Heavy/Soldiers/Scouts...don't need AS much precision as the Sniper (who's basically using a Scout rifle from CS:S). I actually do quite well, but I could be doing even better were it not for the input lag.

If you want a map that really accentuates input lag, try fy_iceworld on CS:S. The minute you step on that map, you can easily distinguish between low and high input-lag monitors.

(ali, Swaziland)

OK guys UPDATE !

Last night I went ahead and put the good ole' CRT back in hot seat...and I was back to fragging as usual :D

Actually as an added bonus, I went ahead and bout myself a Deathadder today, I've been loving every minute of it !

This LCD is getting packed up and I'm giving it to the girlfriend as a "extra" X-mas gift :p

Cheers all and happy holidays !

(ibrahim, Israel)

yea my aim went to shit when i switched to lcd years ago.. but now i just play for fun and not competitively :p but yes, you do get used to it after a while, ive even gotten used to the nasty ghosting on my 2405

(ali, Algeria)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuminaryJanitor (Post 1031827137)

Uh... you shouldn't be. The two monitors don't have the same aspect ratio, so the proportions are going to be screwed up on one or the other if you're using the same resolution.

If you can't run your LCD's native res, try to use one with the same ratio from this list.

Exactly, CRT's don't even share the same aspect ratios as non-wide LCD's which are 5:4 instead of 4:3 of standard CRT's

If you're running the exact same resolutions on both then one is/was distorted (stretched or compressed)

You need to make sure you set correct resolutions for your display, CRT's are 4:3 (common mistkae is to use 1280x1024 which is NOT a 4:3 resolution) LCD's are 5:4 and wide LCD's are 16:10 (not 16:9 like most widescreen TV's) There are a few rare exceptions so always double check.

(kapý açýk itiniz , Central African Republic)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spare-Flair (Post 1031831837)

No, it is especially true of LCDs, in fact input lag is a large issue for even console gamers and HDTVs and there are articles published by it. CRTs are not affected by this issue since they are analog and need none of these features. LCDs have these additional features to improve image quality based on the shortcomings on LCD technology but can cause substantial lag in certain models.

http://gear.ign.com/articles/720/720303p1.html

Exactly, processing of image data takes time, so monitors that have complex internal scalers to allow resolutions to be resized (stretched/compressed) and that do other image quality touch ups, are all going to have increased latench associated with displaying the image.

The great thing about the Dell 3007 I have is that it has none of that rubbish and so has practically no input lag, it's very featureless but truth be told (theres no OSD, and only buttons the monitor sports are power on/off and brightness up/down), all the additional features are available through the Nvidia control panel, including allowing the drivers to rescale images and send through at native resolution which allows me to use any resolution I like and not suffer additional latency for it.

(hasan, Niue)

It looks like you've made your choice, but did you fiddle with the LCD at all?

As far as LCDs go, I always set my graphics card to 60 Hz and enable V-Synch in all games, over 60 fps causes tearing for me (2405 FPW). Also: you MUST use the monitors native resolution, in general it would be:
17" or 19" 1280x1024
20" 1600x1200
20" widescreen 1680x1050
24" widescreen 1920x1200
You can't go over the native (those times where you can, what you see is just a zoom fit with only the pixels your LCD can render). If you're under the native then it stretches the image to fit your screen. I'd see this as the main problem with aiming since the image isn't quite as pure as it ought to be.

In general though I love the LCD, so much smaller, light & consumes much less power than the CRT. Yeah it can suck needing the GPU to render 1920x1200 all the time, but thus far the 8800 GTS 320mb has been able to play everything rather nicely.

As far as refresh rates go though, I think anything under 12ms usually works fine. I'm pretty sure my eyesight is damn good and I've got no issues with the 2405 or the Viewsonic 20" WS VX series. The Dell 1901 from a few years ago (20ms I think?) was noticeable.

(Mehmet , Switzerland)

Yeap the LCD is 20" wide screen so the res is 1680x1050.

I did fiddle with settings...

~Tried V-sync on/off
~Tried different quality settings
~Different res with different refresh rates
~Different mouse settings.
~Different servers
~ect...

An LCD, or this LCD just not the ticket for me for gaming.

I did mess around and fired up titans Quest a couple days ago and I must say that looked awesome and played very nice !

(alican, Hungary)

Man I was such a huge CRT fan back in the day. I spent a hell of alot of money on the old Sony F520 and had it for quite some time. I switched to a Dell 2407 for space concerns and back then I was an avid CS player. When I made the switch I actually felt no difference at all.

Now I'm on a 37" Westinghouse and there is no chance in hell I would ever go back to CRT again. I know the difference is there especially for twitch gamers but I personally did not see any and from my understanding the F520 was pretty much the best you could buy.

(Emre, Tuvalu)

For games and word processing work and even browsing LCD's are fine, but if you work with anything that requires good colour reproduction then you have to use a good CRT, no LCD's not even S-IPS panels are going to give you what you need.

(yýldýz, New Caledonia)

I don't think I've seen or heard of a Dell monitor that doesn't have any sort of input lag... care to show us pics of this Dell in action versus a CRT?

Since I don't play as competitively as I used to, a 1fps loss LCD is fine for me, my skill makes up for it, but I tend to gravitate away from the heavy precision shooting tactics these days compared to my CRT days. If I really wanted to put the hurt down online on some players I do have my CRT handy. Though knowing I'm off 1fps most of the time, there are good odd chances out of 10 that if I go for a headshot, I'll get it. I just have to pray I get multiple chances and the lag is on my side as opposed to previous it was almost a sure shot.

(cecoooo, Oman)

Odd situation. I'm a seriously hardcore gamer, primarily FPS (almost any/all you can think of), and I had absolutely no problems going from CRT to LCD.

I'm currently running a 22" Chimei widescreen monitor which actually stretches BF2 because there's no widescreen support or my resolution listed, but still have no problems with aiming. Headshots galore, in any game.

Maybe it's just a really bad LCD model?

(msn de ateþimi dindirecek, French Southern Territories)

It took me a few weeks to adjust from the switch, but I would never go back now. :D

(adem, Puerto Rico)

Quote:

Originally Posted by -O-rigin (Post 1031835333)

Odd situation. I'm a seriously hardcore gamer, primarily FPS (almost any/all you can think of), and I had absolutely no problems going from CRT to LCD.

I'm currently running a 22" Chimei widescreen monitor which actually stretches BF2 because there's no widescreen support or my resolution listed, but still have no problems with aiming. Headshots galore, in any game.

Maybe it's just a really bad LCD model?

It's a lower priced 22", it most likely has a TN panel, (TN panels usually have a faster response time than the other panel types). It also prolly lacks some of the image enhancing features of higher priced lcds. Which generally results in less input lag. It still has more lag than the average crt, but perhaps it is not enough that you notice it.

I want a display tech that has all the benefits of crt screens; (no native res, refresh rates above 85, accurate color, no input lag, no panel lag), as well as all the benefits of lcd screens; (accurate geometry, crystal clear text, no flicker regardless of refresh rate, lighter, thinner, uses less power), all at a reasonable price.

I'm dreaming, I know.

(sinem, Bangladesh)

Quote:

Originally Posted by -O-rigin (Post 1031835333)

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/search.p...1&select=panel
If your Chi Mei shares the same panel as the 226BW, you are in really good shape. The 226BW is in the <5ms group (1.6ms input lag):
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/i...mparison_2.jpg

Then it's no surprise you don't notice the difference.

(Baskan, Haiti)

Switching to a 30in improved my game :D.

(ebru, Andorra)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GORANKAR (Post 1031836636)

Not sure of the exact details of how a TN panel works, but I believe mine is, which is fine with me because it's 100x's clearer and more crisp than any CRT I've ever used and does actually have a good deal of features, though I've actually not even had to bother messign with anything, as everything looks fantastic on this monitor.

Wouldn't a TN panel LCD be the way to always go in that case? Or is it not used with more expensive LCD's? I'm never really up-to-date with the tech behind monitors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mav451 (Post 1031836709)

Yeah, it's in the 5ms range. I've never noticed any lag what-so-ever, but still have the benefit of an extremely beautiful picture compared to any CRT monitor. For $240, a 22" LCD like this Chimei has been a great investment for me. Huge, crystal clear, no lag at all (that I notice)... would buy another one, most certainly.

(emrah, French Polynesia)

Switched to a LCD and now I'mm owned in BF2 ? ( 2 Views )

Related Topics ... (or search in 1.720.883 topics !)