i play q4 on a 25ms tft and i have no problem with it.. :) so they are fine with me

I recommend you to see a doctor

coroner would be better, he seems to be dead tho :>

I had a 25 ms eiizo screen before,
now I have 3 sm viewsonic, the difference is HUGE.

hmm, really? (got an eizo, too.) my second monitor is a crt (still waiting on the cash to flow for buying another tft) but i'm looking forward to try one of those low-ms ones..

guess i'm gonna try playing on my crt for a change and will see what's the difference. though i'd have to rearrange my screens as the crt one is with a bad angle on me (talking about lazyness)..

lmao @ tft

I got a 4ms TFT...it feels weird for 30 mins then it's just fine

I switched from 19" CRT at 120Hz to this Acer CrystalBrite TFT LCD (notebook), and in the beginning it was a pain in the ass to play (talking about Q3, I don't play Q4). The whole ghosting was annoying and it just felt shit, but it got way better when I switched from 800x600 to the native resolution of my notebook, 1280x800. I wouldn't call it great or even perfect, but it's somewhat playable this way. I think I even changed my mouse movement a bit to produce less ghosting :>
dunno what ms my LCD is supposed to be tho, prolly something high as it's more than 1 year old : - E

its all about syncing ur FPS with ur HZ, so the max Hz of ur LCD would be 75Hz. Now ull have to do com_maxfps 75, and it will be in sync. now enjoy the tft goodness!

nop, my LCD has max 60Hz, and it fucking SUCKS to play at 60fps (hello Q4?)... that simply doesnt work :)

IMO it is fine as long as all the players have the same hardware. Sure, it will benefit the players who have TFT's at home, but just during the first rounds until everybody gets used to it.

fine as tiger woods and rest of the players all use the same wooden clubs.

they are called bats m8 geddit right

didn't know golfers used bats...

theyre called clubs.. god

haha 2xowned. CLUBS M8 HAHAHAH!

golf noob

hahaha

:P

hey cutie

i thought u were joking, but then i realised you are serious. lol

If they were made by Nike and they got paid big $$$ to use them, they sure would.

not if they played worse...

It's fucking gray-to-gray. It's FAKE! The real response time will be like 4-6ms. CPL did a nice advertisiment for Benq.

Also, even if it has 6ms response time, that doesn't matter much. Nowadays manufactureres decrease the response time from black to white, but do not improve the response time of other colors as well.

dell 2001FP ftw

where is i like my crt option?

add it please.

:(

rather have a TFT SUX vote option

The new TFT monitors are fine for gaming. And concidering the space they take, I think overal they are better for tournament use. People talking about hertz dont have the slightest idea on what is going on. A TFT renders in a complete different way than a CRT, in which the CRT needs more hertz to make a pleasant image with good contrast.

One of the first things you have to do though with TFT, is working in the native resolution of it (ussually 1280*1024). And at the maximum frequency possible, in my case 72hz. This will give a really sharp image, which most of us are familiar with from CRT @ 125hz.

What, however, is a big problem, is the ghosting issue on TFT. You really need a fast TFT monitor to get a good image that doesn't hurt your eyes, and that doesn't ghost a lot. 25ms etc, is just a pain to work with. And I'm a designer so I don't just use this for playing games. 8ms is the absolute max.

I think the CPL took one of the, if not the, best TFT panel you can possibly get. It's also a lot easier to transport. Win win situation if you'd ask me.

The new TFT monitors are fine for gaming.

No they arn't. Get your eyes tested beefore it is too late.

I bet you have all the experience a man can get right?
Anyway, as a matter of fact, I did get my eyes tested for a medial paper I had to do. I had nill deviation in my eyesight. Which was surprising for the guy.

heh 20-20 ftw!

Still they arn't fine for the gaming we all want to do.

Meh, I don't know. In my personal view they are just fine.

"People talking about hertz dont have the slightest idea on what is going on."

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that a monitor's refresh rate had something to do with the fps you can see, but I must have been mistaken.

Refresh rates on a TFT are completely different -______-

Flickering and latencies aside, refresh rate on a TFT display is just as much an upper limit to your fps as it is on a CRT.

Due to the nature of light through crystals, even the physical limit of refresh rate will be experience different, and less hard than on a CRT.

That being said, I'm starting to sound pro-TFT, and I'm not.
CRT for life \:D/

Wow, people are actually voting to wait until they see it before they cast judgement on the thing without testing it. Who'd have thought the majority would actually vote with their brains instead of flaming whatever they don't know about?

With that said, TFT sucks, go CRT! \o/

punee intended it to be this way, just like he intended toast to always land butter side down!

not true I suggest you to watch brainiac

Punee intended brainiac to tell a lie to cover the truth up

Imagine what would happen if Punee and Chuck Norris were to meet.

that has already happened, punee created chuck norris

"A segment on tonight's MythBusters addresed the question of "whether buttered toast falls buttered side up or down more often?" This is one of my favorite daily puzzles that can be addressed by a basic understanding of experimentation and statistics. My own curiosity on this question was satisfied by a segment of Newton's Apple -- if my memory is correct -- which found that it is the typical height of the table surface which determines the, originally, upward facing side falling on the floor. Pushing the toast from a ladder completely reversed this trend as the toast could tumble a full 360° and land in its original orientation: buttered side up.

Yet, notice the MythBusters question: it asks if toast being buttered effects how it ends up -- regardless of its original orientation, even if that is buttered up in most all daily cases. So first they had to find a way to drop toast in an unbiased way independent of the original orientation. Not surprisingly, Adam found that pushing it from the table was not satisfactory on this note. Eventually they developed a machine that dropped unbuttered toast landing up 11 times, and down 13 times -- orientation was determined by a magic marker X which we must assume is unbiasing. It is reasonable to conclude that 11 up and 13 down is indicative of a "fair" mechanism. Now when they buttered a side of 24 slices of toast they also found 12 up and 12 down. These sample sizes are too small, but roughly, it does not appear that the butter had any effect!

However, when they drop the toast from a two-story building (27'5") and find that the dry toast side X lands up 26 out of 48 drops (54%) and the buttered side X lands up 29 out of 48 drops (60%), Jamie posits that the 6% discrepancy is because he could see that the buttered side had a concave impression, and like a leaf, the convex non-buttered side tended to fall face down. Adam concludes, "if you really want to ensure, in general, you're toast landing buttered side up or down, we can tell you, you should butter with a good vigor and that the resultant bowl will make your toast generally fall butter side up." However, though he "generally" qualified his statement, strictly speaking, it is not statistically supported and when Jamie is offering a mechanism for a perceived statistical finding, he is premature. (However, if he is offering a simple observation, that's all it is.)

In this case, the null hypothesis is that the difference between the dry 54% and the buttered 60% is just due to chance. (Or, if we were to repeat the experiment, it's probable that a similar skew would happen.) The alternate theory is that there is some causal mechanism (i.e. the bowl shaped impression) that affects the outcome. If we can show that there is a low probability of repeating the experiment and observing a similar significance of difference (6%), that implies support for the alternative hypothesis. Unfortunately, neither test alone is statistically significant. For example, the probability of getting 29 out of 48 drops buttered side up even on a fair coin is 8.5 %.

z = (observed - expected) / StandardError
z = (29 - 24) / Sqrt(48)*Sqrt(.5*.5) = 1.445
=> P = 8.5%

The random chance of getting 26 buttered side up his 27%.

The probability that the difference between getting 26 in the "dry" control case, and 29 in the buttered case also is 27% and not significant.

z = (observed - expected) / StandardErrorofDifference
z= ((60%-54%) - 0%) / Sqrt((SEdry)^2 + (SEbuttered)^2)
z=6% / Sqrt(7.19^2 + 7.07^2)% = .5950
=> P = 27%
"

I've read that the ACTUAL delay (ms) is still way higher in reality. (i read it in some forum here on esr quite a while ago)

If I remember right It had something to do with refreshrate.
1000ms / 75ms = 13,333333333ms or something like that

Today's TFTs are good enough. Not as good as CRTs, but _still_ good enough.

the point is its pro, they arnt forced use BS equpment in other sports. they use the best thing for the game, tft isnt the best, so they should make them..

the sad thing is that most people probably voted on options when they havent even tried using a tft monitor.

The point im making is many ppl dont make this selection fool primax

yes, they vote "I'll wait until I've tried it"

.

wow, 450+ votes. you all going to cpl?

Ive tested one TFT wich i found decent for fps gaming.. tho mark the word; DECENT here.

I have hopes for the future tho.

Math Time:
2ms is grey to grey, so black to white will be about 12ms at the absolute worst. 12ms = 0.012 seconds. 1/0.012 = 83.33 fps > 63 fps (Q4), so there is no problem. Ghosting is not an issue any more. CRT = TFT, its time to move past stereotypes.

I still find a marked difference switching from TFT to CRT, so they're not perfect. However I don't think it's a big problem, a few hours of gaming and you should get used to it.

what tft should i buy (19" maxres 1280x1024, good for q4 of c) ?

Best bet is to get the one they're using at CPL I guess. Otherwise the Samsung 930BF is reasonably good and quite cheap.

why not make the cpl byoc, and then everyone is satisfied :O

LOL ANYONE WHOS SUGGESTS TFTS ARE OK FOR GAMING IS WANK

I'm going to buy the Dell 2405FPW TFT for gaming. Simply because its 24 inch widescreen (and I intend to have the graphical grunt to run at native resolution).

If there was a good CRT 24inch widescreen on the market today (there used to be a Sony 24 inch widescreen which was the bomb) I would get that instead, but with that lack of CRT choice, i'm plumbing for the massive screen and portability. It gets v good reviews and looks damned sexeh.

I don't think my eyes are good enough to detect the difference between modern TFT and CRT's. If I was pro-gaming, i'd obviously not use a TFT coz I'd want every micro-percentage advantage. But i'm not pro-gaming, coz i'm shit :)

Dell 2405FPW for me!

Those Sony 24" widescreen CRTs (the W900 model) shows up on ebay reasonably often. Three were available recently, the first for ~£35, second for ~£41 and the third (which was allegedly in very good condition) for £79. The FW900 is the top of the range model and supports up to 121khz is better (the W900 supports up to 96khz) but they don't appear all that often.

As for the TFT thing not making much difference. You are probably right it isn't much of a difference for the average gamer. I'd say using a TFT is similar to playing QW at 77fps and 77hz on a CRT with one frame of lag kinda like having vsync on which can be one or two frames of lag depending on the gfx hardware used.

I've done lag tests using my own vsync methods I wrote on Linux and with the one frame of lag vsync method the visual lag isn't noticable BUT my performance suffered greatly. If I didn't know it was because of the lag I'd have thought I was just playing really badly especially compared to my enemy who was somehow always one step ahead of me or was somehow always able to react faster. It was starting to annoy me after a few games. :)

Should be fine at the CPL with those TFTs though seeing as everyone will be suffering from effectively one frame of visual lag.

That 2405 is a very nice monitor though and I'd definately get one for general use and probably for casual gaming if I didn't already have some top of the range 21" CRT monitors. :)

dammit,

my friend just bought the dell 20inch widescreen. I checked it out as my first really analytical look at a TFT. Utterly shite.

The Dell, although receiving good reviews, is bollox. I've come to the conclusion that my upgrade is at a bad time for pc's. If i'm to achieve visual clarity, i'm gonna have to plug for the 22" Illyama (for size and quality) CRT. The TFT bunch are just not up to it yet.

Godammit. I really wanted to get the Dell.

I hate TFT's to be honest, they simply suck ;\

i've only played on one old Viewsonic TFT and it was a horrible experience but i hear the new ones are much better.

I have a 125 Hz 19" CRT very nice, but I played on a 4 ms TFT once, actually I didn't see any diffrences + its handy for LAN

true, tft = perfect for lans, if you got to bring it and carry it yourself.
when someone sponsors you with equipment and will set it up for you, why not get 21" crt with 120 hz or something?
(If I was strong and shit I'd bring mine on lans, but then again, if I was strong I wouldn't be a computer nerd in the first place.)

4 down (only) and a lot left

whatsoever, Im most likely missing a 'fuck 80% of you all' option lmfao

2 ms tft /o/

TFT isnt good enough for quakeworld yet, not even close.

fuck 2ms, build a 125hz tft and i will buy it.

I'm thinking about buying the new 24" Benq screen A: http://www.benq.com/products/LCD/?product=839 or B: http://www.benq.com/products/LCD/?product=1010.

Does anyone have any experience with any of these screens? I really want to try it out before I buy one, but it seems to be hard to find any shop that has them on display.

I will use it for both movies (1:1 HDTV ;) and games (q3,nwn2 mostly right now). The question is if I can live with the ghosting. Anyone got any experience or opinion of Benq:s "AMA Z" technique (basically throws in a black frame between frames)? If it helps against ghosting I'm willing to pay the extra price for it.

Another option I want is to use the picture-in-picture. How good are these nowadays?

Lastly, I heard some rumors of a new 100Hz TFT-screen. Does anyone know roughly when it will be out and will it be good enough to wait for? :)

Merry christmas!

75 Hz on the 2 ms screen and a max 60 FPS cap in Q4 will make it very nice to play. same as crt.

TFTs are a cheap way for manufacturers to save their money while pushing crap on consumers.

CRT > LCD. Always was, always will be, and no response time and other marketing crapola will change it. LCD is not a new technology, it's a very old one and it was conceived for pocket calculators, not personal computers.

Hopefully the next computer monitor technology will come fast so I can skip LCD garbage altogether.

Oh, and please make it 4:3. 4:3 is the ideal, time-tested format for computing at all levels. Widescreen is fine for home video, which has absolutely nothing to do with computers.

Bite me for laying out THE TRUTH for the little people.

Welcome to 3 years ago. Shut up.