The reason you don't see a lot of discussion on monitors for SC2 is because it's not a graphically intense game.

There isn't enough motion to require a 120Hz panel to reduce it. Your eyes see at ~30Hz and at 60Hz most people won't notice any stutter at all anymore. 120Hz simply reduces the motion blur on screen during fast-paced or fast-moving shots. Think a first person shooter when you turn around very quickly - everything blurs. On a 120Hz screen it will blur less. Starcraft really doesn't have much motion blur to obstruct your view of small men moving around slowly on a big screen.

The colors won't improve significantly from an IPS panel. You'd be better off just calibrating a normal LCD as the accuracy of the color isn't a key factor in playing any better.

16:10 gives the most FOV. 16:9 is preferably in FPS games because it wastes less screen on rendering the sky or the ground at your feet leaving your GPU free to render a more-wide view of scenery you care about. Since in an RTS you're only looking at the ground, having a taller screen is beneficial.

16:10, 60 or 120Hz won't matter much, and you don't need an IPS panel. I would recommend moving to something bigger than 1920:1200 if you have the money to do so and you are REALLY looking for a maximum FOV.

 

The u2412m is on sale love mine and yes I play Starcraft

 

Starcraft doesn't benefit from 120Hz

 

Actually 16:9 gives more FOV in Sc2 than 16:10. You can read about it in this article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=130440

Also many people recommend 1920x1080 resolution for Sc2 since that's the highest resolution it can go. They also recommend 23.6" compared to 21.5" because it gives you bigger map so it's easier to track units.

But other than that I agree with you.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bountysky;14782261
Actually 16:9 gives more FOV in Sc2 than 16:10. You can read about it in this article: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=130440

Also many people recommend 1920x1080 resolution for Sc2 since that's the highest resolution it can go. They also recommend 23.6" compared to 21.5" because it gives you bigger map so it's easier to track units.

But other than that I agree with you.

I agree with you, i have a 23.7inch and its heaven in SC2

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTRLurself [Knyte Custom];14772064

The colors won't improve significantly from an IPS panel. You'd be better off just calibrating a normal LCD as the accuracy of the color isn't a key factor in playing any better.

i thought IPS had noticeably superior colors?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinny1;14782508
i thought IPS had noticeably superior colors?

It does -- but the discussion was more geared to the 60/120hz and which one would be better.

In my opinion, if you have the money, get the IPS model and not the TN. You won't notice a difference from the extra hz. However, in other tasks and just out right beauty, the IPS monitor will be the better choice as long as money permits.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinny1;14782508
i thought IPS had noticeably superior colors?

i think the colors are superior i just upgrade too an IPS panel and i see a big difference.

 

the colors are superior. I think they were discussing whether superior colors would make a difference in SC2.

FYI, In RTS games you cannot resize the viewing field to see more terrain on a 2560x1600, for competitive purposes I suppose. When I play COH on my 2560x1440 the HQ is larger than my fist.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balsagna;14782527
You won't notice a difference from the extra hz.

You can suggest IPS, because they're awesome, but saying 120hz sucks because 60hz = 120hz is just lame.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTRLurself [Knyte Custom];14772064
Your eyes see at ~30Hz

Whatever "frequency your eyes see at" is irrelevant when you DO notice a LARGE difference going from 60 to 85hz on a crt, and even more so from 60 to 120hz on an lcd. I've read all kinds of things about at which point higher frequencies stop making a difference, because your eyes see at xxhz. Truth is, it's more than simply noticeable. Not only because there are added frames, but also because that very addition resolves part of the ghosting lcd's present at 60hz. I'm a new member, so i'm just starting to participate in the forums. But i can tell you, from the little time i've spent reading about monitors here, the whole "you won't even notice 120hz" is becoming very annoying. Every person here that has tried 120hz has stated that it does make a huge difference, and people should just accept that both IPS and 120hz TN have their pros and cons.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToTheSun!;14786835
Whatever "frequency your eyes see at" is irrelevant when you DO notice a LARGE difference going from 60 to 85hz on a crt, and even more so from 60 to 120hz on an lcd. I've read all kinds of things about at which point higher frequencies stop making a difference, because your eyes see at xxhz. Truth is, it's more than simply noticeable. Not only because there are added frames, but also because that very addition resolves part of the ghosting lcd's present at 60hz. I'm a new member, so i'm just starting to participate in the forums. But i can tell you, from the little time i've spent reading about monitors here, the whole "you won't even notice 120hz" is becoming very annoying. Every person here that has tried 120hz has stated that it does make a huge difference, and people should just accept that both IPS and 120hz TN have their pros and cons.

This is the main point for the OP. Starcraft doesn't strike me as the type of game that would benefit from 120Hz. However, between that and an IPS for gaming, I would chose the 120Hz. Who cares if your red is a bit too violet or the white a little too yellow in a video game. Most TN panels are accurate enough for 95% of people to not be able to tell a difference, especially with the quality of the lighting in the rooms their computers reside (which affects color a LOT).

All in all, if Starcraft and gaming are the most important to you, OP, I would pick the 120Hz. If you want a nice monitor that will be bit better for daily use then I would pick the IPS. But that's me.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToTheSun!;14786835
Whatever "frequency your eyes see at" is irrelevant when you DO notice a LARGE difference going from 60 to 85hz on a crt, and even more so from 60 to 120hz on an lcd.

If you quote the whole thing I said and not latch onto one statement, it was qualified.
Quote:

There isn't enough motion to require a 120Hz panel to reduce it. Your eyes see at ~30Hz and at 60Hz most people won't notice any stutter at all anymore. 120Hz simply reduces the motion blur on screen during fast-paced or fast-moving shots.

No more stutter at 60Hz means motion is fluid at this speed to most people. That doesn't mean you have crystal clear everything period. It means that there isn't a stutter that you can notice transitioning between frames, it's not a choppy low fps video.

I even stated 120Hz has benefits, a plasma has even less blur, but in an RTS it makes no difference. Don't just quote part of a statement and then get all fired up about it. The question was about 120Hz in an RTS, I answered about 120Hz in an RTS.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Draygonn;14782689
the colors are superior. I think they were discussing whether superior colors would make a difference in SC2.

Yes, my response was IPS in SC2 will make no difference. I'm no fool, IPS panels are gorgeous, but they won't benefit his RTSing in the least.

 

So to sum it up, 120hz and IPS don't benefit Sc2 very much. Nonetheless if I had to choose 120Hz would benefit Sc2 more than IPS.

Although all I need is an TN monitor, the cheapest 23" ~ 24" TN monitor I could find was for $179(BenQ e2420hd). But for just $50 more I could get U2312HM(only in AUS). So I got myself U2312HM instead.

 

Starcraft II is not dependent on your monitor much if at all. Same with the mouse.

 

While color accuracy is not a concern usually when gaming in IPS vs TN debate what does matter in my experience is a lot better viewing angles on the IPS. Thats the point of IPS for me - not the color accuracy which is almost the same anyway on these new "cheap" IPS screens like e-IPS.

Now if you can live fine with more limited viewing angles of TN then it's fine to go with a 120 Hz TN screen.

If you are considering possibility to use your display some day in the future in portrait mode (for example 3x1 portrait Eyefinity) then IPS screen would be more reasonable.

 

Well. depends on your key strokes/min alot of rts pros are like 300-500 key strokes /min, @ that rate you would need crt/120hz for gaming. BUt just a gamer I like my led tn 120hz. But i fly/drive/fps Gamer love the 120hz helps alot in bc2 and dirt 2 il-2 rise of flight. rts not so much i dont have alot of key strokes/min.

 

I have a 120hz viewsonic panel and I absolutely love it. It's about on the level of a crt. A little less. I play tf2 competitively and I absolutely love it. If you want smooth gameplay in other games such as fps' I'd get the 120hz. Other points have been made too, and I'd go with the good sized monitor. 120hz is a plus if you can find one that fits the preferred size and resolution for an rts game.

 

Better colors won't help you in any competitive game but SC2 looks way better with IPS compared to TN.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GfhTattoo;14794858
Well. depends on your key strokes/min alot of rts pros are like 300-500 key strokes /min, @ that rate you would need crt/120hz for gaming. BUt just a gamer I like my led tn 120hz. But i fly/drive/fps Gamer love the 120hz helps alot in bc2 and dirt 2 il-2 rise of flight. rts not so much i dont have alot of key strokes/min.

The move towards higher end hardware in profesisonal gaming is driven more by hardware companies than any actual need for it.

I'm sure that even if the game had 30 fps the apm would not change much. The nature of high level starcraft play is more preemptive/predictive than it is reactive, reducing the need to have a high refresh rate.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTRLurself [Knyte Custom];14772064
There isn't enough motion to require a 120Hz panel to reduce it. Your eyes see at ~30Hz and at 60Hz most people won't notice any stutter at all anymore.

False. Your eyes can see up to at least 200 FPS unless you're really blind

And our eyes don't refresh so assinging that sort of stat on our eyes is useless.
Quote:

Originally Posted by CTRLurself [Knyte Custom];14772064
16:10 gives the most FOV. 16:9 is preferably in FPS games because it wastes less screen on rendering the sky or the ground at your feet leaving your GPU free to render a more-wide view of scenery you care about. Since in an RTS you're only looking at the ground, having a taller screen is beneficial.

16:10, 60 or 120Hz won't matter much, and you don't need an IPS panel. I would recommend moving to something bigger than 1920:1200 if you have the money to do so and you are REALLY looking for a maximum FOV.

16:9 gives more FOV in almost every single modern game out there. Period. Only ones that give more FOV on 16:10 are vert- games, which were like 2005 and earlier, which saw the most on 5:4, not 16:10.

Why don't you go and educate yourself a bit before trying to make these claims that are completely false? Or, at the very least, state if you are unsure about something you say. That is what I do, and it works.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GfhTattoo;14794858
I like my led tn 120hz.

I'm pretty sure the w2363d is ccfl backlit.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by De-Zant;14795533
False. Your eyes can see up to at least 200 FPS unless you're really blind

And our eyes don't refresh so assinging that sort of stat on our eyes is useless.

Why don't you go and educate yourself a bit before trying to make these claims that are completely false? Or, at the very least, state if you are unsure about something you say. That is what I do, and it works.

If you want to get REALLY technical; trained AF pilots could identify a plane that was flashed to them for as little as 1/500th of a second under ideal conditions (sitting in a pitch black room for hours and them flashing images very brightly for varying amounts of time to see how fast an eye could pick up an image). So: "state if you are unsure about something you say."

If you're eyes saw at 200fps under normal conditions on a crt/LCD you would see some combination of black flashes, rippling, colors pulsating, etc. Most broadcast TV is done around 30fps, most movies are 48fps or less, and most people can't notice stutter in the video at all or very rarely. Standard signal aliasing tells us that you double the data rate to get "true" fidelity and not "lose" your signal (the image) by sampling (viewing the image) between samples. This is of course all assuming discrete sampling which we know isn't how the eye works, so most, if not all numbers on quantifying how the eye works is useless to put numbers to in a verifiable way.

Practically, under normal conditions, at 30fps an image is pretty smooth with occasional stutter, at 60fps the stutter very intermittent and hard to perceive and motion is fluid, and everything past this speed reduces motion blurring due to the discrete frames displayed when translated to our eyes continuous viewing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by De-Zant;14795533
16:9 gives more FOV in almost every single modern game out there. Period. Only ones that give more FOV on 16:10 are vert- games, which were like 2005 and earlier, which saw the most on 5:4, not 16:10.

I didn't think about games moving away from 16:10 now as all my monitors are 16:9 for FPSs anyways, but if the support is there for the resolution then I'd take 16:10 over 16:9 for an RTS. So here I'll yield some here... it all depends.

 

You can't relate GAME FPS and motion blurred movie FPS

Try locking (say) half life 2 to 30FPS through console and playing with that. Horrible. Why? It lacks the motion blur used in movies.

I am using 3x CRTs ATM. My F520s allow for 170hz on 1028x768. I can STILL see the individual frames if I move fast in an FPS game OR if I move my cursor around on the desktop. For real usage it is plenty enough for anything, but I am just pointing out, that you don't need to see the flicker on a CRT to see the limited FPS. Multiple other factors are included that distort the amount of flicker visible on different hz if you're on a CRT

In short my point is: 30FPS is fine.... for movies and TV shows because they have motion blur and you don't control them. It is another thing with games because multiple factors make FPS lag more apparent.

Oh, and here's an example of SC2 scaling. All resolutions within the same aspect ratio see the same amount, due to competetive balancing purposes.

 

Has anyone tried Sc2 on both U2311H and AW2310? If you have, which one would you prefer to play on?

I'm aware that 120hz only mostly benefits FPS and racing games.

I do agree that 120Hz probably benefits gaming in general more than IPS.

But since I can get U2312HM for only $230 and the AW2310 still costs $400 it's not really worth it.

And although the only advantage of IPS in gaming is more colourful graphics, it's still a worthy upgrade when it's similarly priced to high-end 23" TN monitors which is why I got myself the U2312HM.