Leythos said:
Actually, as a target shooting I completely understand FOV, in fact, a
smaller FOV is what is needed to play most games and for target shooting -
as a larger field of view means more information, smaller objects, harder
to find target point.
Having the extra information means that you can see the target on screen
by moving your eyes, instead of the characters head. Thats quicker.
What you're saying is that if you stuck a box on your head, with a
window in front of you (in real life), you'd be more effective. I doubt
it. I'm not saying the objects are going to be any smaller at all...
your distance from the screen compensates that.
Having a 35% FOV on a screen, 24" widescreen unit, that's 18 inches (and
many game players play with less than that) in front of you, means you
move your eyes more than I would on a 19" screen at the same distance -
less eye strain.
I don't get any eye strain so I can't comment.
Easier to place the reticle on the target point - this isn't horse-shoes.
Most games require exact placement of a shot in order to be most
effective, the lower res often relates into better accuracy as a single
pixel, in some games, is related to screen res and that means shot
accuracy.
When you play at a higher resolution you have greater depth of field
(potentially). That doesn't make things smaller... but it does allow
you to see smaller things. If you play at 800x600, and a target is
6pixels across, you might find it hard to work out what it is. If you
play at 1600x1200, it's 12 pixels across, and that might provide enough
information to know whether it's a tree or an enemy soldier.
Equivelently, I can now see things which are further away... I have
greater depth of field.
I have played at those res and I didn't like it, it was harder to place
the shot.
I still don't see how... the target is the same physical size regardless
of your resolution.
I mostly agree with you, beyond a certain level there is little difference
in monitor quality - if you spend about $500~$700 on a quality CRT you get
about the best image quality regardless of size.
I have a Sony G400 (19" CRT) it must be over 5 years old now. I run my
desktop at 1600x1200@85Hz - I can and often do, sit here all day long
coding and never get eye strain. It was an excellent investment, even
at £400 back then.
I do agree about the
keyboard, mouse, monitor being very key points - as I always tell
customers, those are the only things you see/use on the computer that make
a difference.
My mouse is the Logitech MX1000 - it's outstanding... I couldn't fault
the MX700 but after using this one, I can tell you it really is a superb
bit if kit that does go that extra mile. Keyboard is Logitech too, say
nearly £100 on mouse/keyboard (which is, admittedly, excessive), but
given the amount of time I sit in front of it, I think it's worth it.
Due to certain vendors making games that exceed the current technology in
video cards, having a fast card is also becoming important, but you won't
see much difference in image quality as long as you purchase a mid/upper
level monitor. For most gamers, the $350 Viewsonic 19" won't provide much
over the $500 Viewsonic 19" monitor.
Understood... for gaming. But then a TV seems to work well too, in many
situations.
You don't really need 1600x1200 on a 19" screen. Much beyond, say
1280x960 with a tad of AA and the image is fine. Given the dot pitch of
my screen, 1440*1080 is probably the maximum "detail" you'll get from
it, but it's still sharp at 1600x1200.
Ben
8ms I doubt it, but if so,