Author Topic: Is AH2 a ...hmm.. "faster" game than AH? (Read 703 times)

Nilsen · « **on:** October 18, 2003, 10:27:14 AM »

Reason for asking:

For AH1 my 19" LCD panel is very good, but i dont think that AH is regarded as a "fast" game if you compare with some of the shooter games like CS and similar.

Is there any more "motion" in AH2 than in AH?

The question may sound stupid, but sites that review LCD panels some times puts these panels in different game categories.

Purzel · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2003, 11:48:50 AM »

Basically youre right as far as different genres go. in an FPS you can turn 180 degrees within half a second or something like that. For these games a "slow" lcd-panel might not be the best choice. That is because if you change a pixel from white to black it takes some amount of time until that pixel is black on the screen. It has some "afterglow" (dunno the corrent word).These times are shorter on CRT-Displays then on LCS-Displays. So, when much is going on on the screen, a CRT-Dispaly might work better.

But if AH works for you, then AH2 will too.

I would say there is no difference from AH2 to AH, because its the same flightsim. Rollrate or elevator authority could change, and then you would have such a problem. But I dont think FM will change that much.

Nilsen · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2003, 12:19:10 PM »

Yup, thats what i figured. I have used LCD's for several years now and i know what severe ghosting can do to a game. The monitor i have at the moment is a 19" LCD with 25ms pixel responce time.

When talking about the diff between AH and AH2 i was thinking that maybe there would be more or faster moving objects, like the new tracer effects, changes in ground objects etc....

Twist · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2003, 12:56:24 AM »

This is a very good question, I'm considering a flat screen myself. It would be nice to know whether or not I'll benefit from the upgrade or set myself up for disappointment when I log on the unfriendly skies.

Zanth · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2003, 09:41:00 AM »

For gaming purposes you will want to reconsider flat panel. The only thing flat panels do better than a crt is take up less space, the crt is still the best quality image.

Nilsen · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2003, 09:59:34 AM »

Nah Zanth.. They work just fine if you get high quality LCD's. The old LCD's are crappy and useless for gaming but the newer 16ms once are truly great. 25ms are also good if it isn't too much motion.

They also use alot less energy, they do not radiate and they are better for the eyes.

For advanced video/image editing CRT's are better because they have more accurate colour rendering.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2003, 10:16:57 AM »

LCD:s also don't emit radiation like CRT's.

I find eye wear at least double up when I use a CRT (trinitron 19" @100hz) compared to my 17" LCD.

Nilsen · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2003, 11:14:49 AM »

+ better contrast.

Zanth · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:19:41 PM »

I forgot to mention you are also stuck at one native resolution. (Especially be careful of 17" flat panels they typically are 1280x1024, which is not widely supported by other games.) 19" LCD I have seen are all 1200x1600 so for best quality you would need to play at that resolution in the game. Otherwise when you adjust for different than native resolution you loose image quality.

The panels cost alot more. It might not look as cool sitting on the desk, but you can get a lot bigger flat screen CRT and have a more flexiblity for the same or less money.

Nilsen · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2003, 02:31:09 PM »

Good point about the resolution Zanth. They look really crappy if not viewed at their native res.

however....

All 19" LCD's i have seen are 1280*1024...same as on most 17"