|
On April 19 2013 16:36 opisska wrote:
I don't understand why woudl anyone want to play SC2 on a 27" screen. I have a 22" and I consider it an absolute limit - I even refuse to play on my wife's 24", because it its just too big and there is not enough space on the table to put it far enough so I can see it whole at once. Yes, you can probably arrange your furniture so that it works, but is it really worth it? I don't see the gain in making the monitor large, but putting it far away and then throwing the possible gain in resolution away by making everything bigger, because you can't see the details from the distance anyway.
Could be usefull for work, when you put it closer as you don't need to see everything at once, but you can make a lot of use from having a lot of stuff displayed side by side, but for SC2, a game that specifically requires you to keep wtaching the very corner of the display while clicking in the middle, not so much.
I think the bigger screen makes playing a bit easier actually, I play 27" 1080p with 70-80cm from my eyes and things are super easy to spot on the minimap, wayyyy easier than on smaller screens and my laptop. Though its mostly just getting used to certain type of screen.
The reason I dont play at full 1440p is that my GPU is 9800gt atm and its not giving good fps on higher res.
|
I have a 2560x1440 27" and I love it. But if I was mainly gaming I go with 24", 27" is a little too big for gaming, doable but sometimes overwhelming.
The extra room the 27" gives you is brilliant for browsing and using word.
|
On April 19 2013 11:59 QTIP. wrote:
I understand this isn't really a tech support thread, but I was hoping to get some feedback on hardware nonetheless.
I'm considering upgrading from my 21" monitor to something a bit larger. I've seen some of the newer 27" monitors, and while they look fantastic, I can't really imagine myself playing SC2 on them due to their large size.
Can you guys provide some feedback on your gaming monitors and what seems to be an ideal size?
If you have a 27" monitor or something comparable, I'd appreciate if you could provide some feedback on your SC2 experience on the larger screen.
Thanks - this information will certainly help me in my purchasing decision.
I have an 22" and don't like it bigger for SC2 because I am so close. So I guess there is no advice which fits any need.
|
Hi.
I use a 32 inch tv as a monitor and i can tell you its too big for competitive RTS.
In broodwar i find it to be actually really unconftable for my wrsit/hand to use the mice on such a large screen.
In other games however, the 32 inch is awsome...
Problem is my favorite game is broodwar :D.
Anyhow i think 27 is still in the safe zone.
|
I use the RL2450HT 24" 1920x1080 with "RTS" mode about 30cm away from me. its so perfect i cant even begin to describe it. even the dark parts of the minimap is so clear :G
I dont think 27" is better unless you are sitting really far away from the monitor :F
|
suggested monitor screens should be between 22-24 inches. although i play using a 32
inch tv. i have to distance myself from the screen to be able to the mini map.
|
1440p offers a lot more granularity in mouse selection as well, but you'll need to change your cpi by a factor of 4/3 to match your old monitor. In terms of viewability, sitting back further if your peripheral vision sucks is an option I guess. What everyone really wants is some nice 4k 24" screens  . Like the dpi on my 13" 1080p ultrabook is dope, if that was scaled to a 24" screen for a decent price I'd jizz myself.
If all you're playing is sc2, 1080p 21-24" is fine. If you're playing other games (like bf3), the higher the resolution the better.
|
for sc2 i use an asus ve228h, just a quick 21.5" TN panel. it's great. Much prefer this over my old 26" due to the fact of it being easier to see the minimap and your resources at the same time.
|
On April 19 2013 16:31 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote + I don't want to give up any FPS either so it looks I'll have to bump up my GPU as well. Oh shit its QTIP, thanks for the anti 1-1-1 guide :0 And yea, 460 is lower end by todays standards - probably not suitable for a lot of graphics intensive games at 2560x1440 especially on higher settings, but what i was arguing and i think is correct is that minimum FPS in sc2 would probably be the same on 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440 (especially if you have 1gb+vram card) because SC2 is so GPU-light in such fights
Hey man - glad to know that my guide had its uses. Your'e a blue poster, so I appreciate your contributions as well! ^^
Thanks for the GPU info! I'll definitely keep in mind.
|
On April 20 2013 03:50 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 16:31 Cyro wrote: I don't want to give up any FPS either so it looks I'll have to bump up my GPU as well. Oh shit its QTIP, thanks for the anti 1-1-1 guide :0 And yea, 460 is lower end by todays standards - probably not suitable for a lot of graphics intensive games at 2560x1440 especially on higher settings, but what i was arguing and i think is correct is that minimum FPS in sc2 would probably be the same on 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440 (especially if you have 1gb+vram card) because SC2 is so GPU-light in such fights Hey man - glad to know that my guide had its uses. Your'e a blue poster, so I appreciate your contributions as well! ^^ Thanks for the GPU info! I'll definitely keep in mind.
I think he's blue because wom got sick of seeing him ask why he wasn't blue when wom, skyr and myrm were first made blues  . I can recall at least three occasions, but I think he said it a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
