I've had my same 15" monitor for years and so that's what I have become accustomed to, but recently I tried nex on a 24", and now I see it reallly makes all the shitload of difference. It alone made me 50% better than I am with my current 15", there's just so much more detail I could see- hidden enemies, distant enemies, etc.

Didn't you leave?

i'm not jealous because i have 1 26" 2 30" and 1 60" tv i sometimes use as a monitor.

In my opinion anything over 15 inches (provided you less than ten feet away) is unnecessary. Sure it's cool to have most of your real-life FOV covered, but if your eyes are as sharp as mine you'll see a grid (well not a grid really) pattern on your screen. If you go big you'll need gratuitous resolution.

My monitor:
ViewSonic G70fmb
15 inches diagonal
Old-ass tech VGA Cable
Price: $15 USD used at local used PC store
1280 x 1024 (56 rows away from 1080 resolution) @ 60Hz
Performance: The box art of Unreal Anthology matches the installation screen in the black levels, brightness, saturation, and color, as well as sharpness (actually the monitor is sharper )

I'm using a 19" screen (5:4) and a 24" widescreen (16:10) myself. I tried on which screen playing nexuiz is more comfortable. It turned out to be the smaller 19" screen. On the big 24" screen I am sort of overwhelmed by the size of the screen and it confuses me. If I wanted to have more overview in the game I'd rather increase the fov variable than using a screen that offers information in areas my visual field can not process properly anyway.

Lee_Stricklin wrote:In my opinion anything over 15 inches (provided you less than ten feet away) is unnecessary. Sure it's cool to have most of your real-life FOV covered, but if your eyes are as sharp as mine you'll see a grid (well not a grid really) pattern on your screen. If you go big you'll need gratuitous resolution.

Ugh, yes, I went from 17" to 22" to get a better resolution, not for the size of the screen itself eh.

Lee_Stricklin wrote:In my opinion anything over 15 inches (provided you less than ten feet away) is unnecessary.

stopped reading here.


you don't do serious work if you think this is true.


It's much easier to write code and edit graphics on a larger monitor.

What he meant is that increasing the size while keeping the same resolution lowers the pixel density, which is uncomfortable to him.

[-z-], when you stop reading before the end of the message, there is no point in criticizing. Especially that way.

[-z-] wrote:

Lee_Stricklin wrote:In my opinion anything over 15 inches (provided you less than ten feet away) is unnecessary.

stopped reading here.
you don't do serious work if you think this is true.
It's much easier to write code and edit graphics on a larger monitor.

Have to agree (except for the serious work part- not everyone is an artist or coder), someone who thinks 15 inches is the pinnacle of UI hardware hasn't really used anything bigger.

Another benefit is you can move further back from a larger monitor which reduces eye and brain strain.

Learn to read everything - like MrBougo said.

Mr. Bougo wrote:What he meant is that increasing the size while keeping the same resolution lowers the pixel density, which is uncomfortable to him.

They do sell 1080p 20"-24" monitors... dell has a few good ones.

Lee_Stricklin wrote:In my opinion anything over 15 inches (provided you less than ten feet away) is unnecessary. Sure it's cool to have most of your real-life FOV covered, but if your eyes are as sharp as mine you'll see a grid (well not a grid really) pattern on your screen. If you go big you'll need gratuitous resolution.

My monitor:
ViewSonic G70fmb
15 inches diagonal
Old-ass tech VGA Cable
Price: $15 USD used at local used PC store
1280 x 1024 (56 rows away from 1080 resolution) @ 60Hz
Performance: The box art of Unreal Anthology matches the installation screen in the black levels, brightness, saturation, and color, as well as sharpness (actually the monitor is sharper )

i disagree, i've had perfect 15:15 vision, mid-sighted (far sighted but can see perfectly at any distance near and far), for years, and while sometimes on occasion a grid is seen, its not much of a problem and in games gameplay is enhanced by the high definition and massive screen taking up your entire fov/pov.

I'm sitting back at least 4 feet away from my monitor and I can still see individual pixels most of the time (unless I'm screwed up) even when I'm fragging. That reminds me, I gotta my eyes checked I got some whack-ass vision.

Lee_Stricklin wrote:I'm sitting back at least 4 feet away from my monitor and I can still see individual pixels most of the time (unless I'm screwed up) even when I'm fragging. That reminds me, I gotta my eyes checked I got some whack-ass vision.

Same here with my 15", but with a 24" you could sit 6 or 8 feet back is what I mean.

could you be any more shallow

The gaps between the screens annoy the hell out of me also the fps is about 10 below playable (playable 25+) level.

in before "it says 115 fps", the 1 is repeated just like the rest :p

yes it is 115fps not 15 fps. but the gaps are kinda annoying, also that's just a pic i found randomly surfing the internet.

It's not 115, as I said

plastik.net wrote:Quake 3 running at 10240x3072 resolution at 15-30 FPS

Everything is displayed, there are no real "gaps". So there's no "1" hiding somewhere, it's just a piece of the "1" you see on the rightmost screen

Mr. Bougo wrote:... there's no "1" hiding somewhere...

How can you tell? You never know with those gaps! AND DON#T SAY THEY#RE NOT REAL1 They thaought stoned wallabees weren't real, either. AND THEY WERE WRONG1111