Question: ARMA/OA Smoothness on a 120hz monitor

[rickidoo 0]

I was hoping someone who plays Arma2/OA and uses a 120hz monitor (*without* 3d glasses) can answer the following question.

With my 24" 60hz monitor, Nvidia 480 graphics card and I950 processor, I get silky smooth frame rates even with all settings maxed out (except post-processing is set to off and I keep the rendering distance to about 1500 yards.)

When I rotate my player's view using the mouse, its not as silky smooth as I would like it to be. (Even if I knock down the graphics quality settings). I think I am hitting the boundary's of the refresh rate for my monitor...

So my question is, for those who have a 120hz monitor, did you notice an improvement in rendering "smoothness" when you rotate the players view?

If that is the case, I may be buying one.

BTW, I am not talking about 3d glasses here. Just plain 2d on a 120hz monitor. All thoughts appreciated.

Edited November 20, 2010 by rickidoo
changed term 'arma' to 'arma 2'

[celery 8]

Logically a 120 Hz monitor should be able to show the game twice as smooth as a 60 Hz one, because the Hz in the monitor is the practical maximum frames per second it shows. Haven't seen it myself though.

[bangtail 0]

A 120Hz monitor won't alleviate what you described, it's got nothing to do with the monitor.

[bigsam656 10]

That stuttering is the textures loading and the only way to get a substantial improvement is to use something like a ram disk or a solid state drive.

[rickidoo 0]

I know its hard to describe in words what I am seeing, but it has nothing to do with the textures. I mean, I have a SSD, 16Gig ram, a 480 Nvidia card and an I950. The two hard drives that I do have are top of the line Raptor drives. It really doesn't get that much stronger than that.

Perhaps I should reverse the question a bit: is there a visual benefit to a 120hz monitor for fast action sequences in Arma, over an 60hz. Do any of you that have a 120hz monitor notice any kind of a difference over the 60hz monitor. How much of a difference? Is it worthwhile updating from a perfectly good 24" flatscreen 60hz monitor to a 23.6" 120hz monitor if realism is increased by this.

Now, people who sell TV's that are 120hz (and now, 240hz) will try to convince you that the tv can more quickly update its picture when there is fast motion moving across the screen.

For slow moving images, or static images, my own eyeballs tell me there is no difference between a 120hz and 60hz tv. It does seem that there is a difference when high speed motion across the screen is happening.

But my interest is with Arma specifically.

Any of you with 120hz monitors see much a difference when there is lots of motion across the screen? (Such as when you spin the view of your soldier).

Rick

[kklownboy 43]

I know its hard to describe in words what I am seeing, but it has nothing to do with the textures. I mean, I have a SSD, 16Gig ram, a 480 Nvidia card and an I950. The two hard drives that I do have are top of the line Raptor drives. It really doesn't get that much stronger than that.

yes it can Edited November 21, 2010 by kklownboy
reading skillz...

[NeMeSiS 11]

Let me ask you this: Have you ever had this problem in anyther game when reaching your max FPS?

ArmA2 can hickup a bit when turning fast with a high viewdistance, and this is more likely then you having trouble with 'only' 60FPS.

[bigsam656 10]

If you are getting a FPS drop when looking around now then it won't make a difference as the FPS will be below 60. If anything performance dips would be more noticeable.

[kklownboy 43]

blah..

Edited November 21, 2010 by kklownboy
see above

[Heatseeker 0]

If the game feels jerky when the frame rate is high then it wont make any diference, it will be the same at 75, 120 or whatever your system can pull.

There is a problem with the current patch (1.55) so you might want to wait for the next one or roll back (reinstall).

[kklownboy 43]

I...

With my 24" 60hz monitor, Nvidia 480 graphics card and I950 processor, I get silky smooth frame rates even with all settings maxed out (except post-processing is set to off and I keep the rendering distance to about 1500 yards.)

When I rotate my player's view using the mouse, its not as silky smooth as I would like it to be. (Even if I knock down the graphics quality settings). I think I am hitting the boundary's of the refresh rate for my monitor...

...

ahh, turn down your AA to6x or 4x high/normal. When you have "good frames" but turning around fast, or even just turning you have jerkyness then your settings are to high. Even a 24",19/1x is still alot for a 480 to have lots of filters. On Cherno. If this on sand maps then something is up... But then you may have a input lag too. Edited November 21, 2010 by kklownboy

[rickidoo 0]

OK, on 11/20/2010 I posted a question regarding if ARMA played "smoother" on a 120 Mhz monitor:

"...for those who have a 120hz monitor, did you notice an improvement in rendering "smoothness" when you rotate the players view?"

There were a number of replies, ranging from "it has nothing to do with the monitor" to a suggestion that I turn down my anti-alias settings.

No one really answered my question, but I can now, since I did buy a 120 Mhz monitor. Specifically an ASUS VG236 with a native resolution of 1920 x 1080. Arma 2 was the first game loaded, in all flavors : arma 2, OA, PMC, and British. Note that I do not have the 3d glasses. This post is all about a normal presentation on a 2D monitor.

My prior monitor was a ASUS as well, 1900x1200 native resolution.

I am happy to report that the visual improvement is noticeable in a very subtle kind of way. It is most apparent when the view is changing quickly in an angular sort of way - when the view is "spinning". It's just "smoother looking".

Please note: I am not referring to FPS - I am referring to something you can't quite aim your finger at, but your brain clearly knows that the pixels are lighting up at a much higher rate - and your eye interprets that as "smoother".

I'm delighted that I bought this monitor, because it did improve my Arma experience.

[bangtail 0]

Sounds like Placebo effect.

What you described in your original post was nothing to do with refresh rate and now you are saying the 'improvement' is something 'you just can't aim your finger at'.

Your original problem was clearly defined.

When I rotate my player's view using the mouse, its not as silky smooth as I would like it to be. (Even if I knock down the graphics quality settings). I think I am hitting the boundary's of the refresh rate for my monitor...

PS: JFYI, I did answer your question (as did others), what you were experiencing originally had absolutely nothing to do with the monitor's refresh rate.

Edited December 22, 2010 by BangTail

[rickidoo 0]

No, for sure, not. What I meant is that here-before, improvement was measured in more textures, more details etc. An increased refresh rate doesn't help that.

There hasn't been a lot of discussion in the ARMA community about 120 Mhz monitors, but there are discussions elsewhere for other games. I'm not the only one seeing a difference.

Take it the other way - reduce the refresh rate from 60 to 30 then to 15. What would happen? Your eyes would see a change in smoothness.

Now take it the other way.. faster.

I'm not saying its night and day different. I'm just trying to get out to the community that 120 Mhz monitors are worth looking at.

Now, back to my game, which was already in progress....

[Jockson 10]

Providing you have a powerful enough system to run games at high fps, every game will feel smoother on a true 120Hz monitor. Even the mouse cursor and dragging stuff around in Windows will feel smoother. I say "true" 120Hz because 120Hz/240Hz TVs still only take 60Hz input and interpolate frames so it's only 120Hz computer monitors that can truly display 120 frames. It's a shame they are all TN panels at the moment though.

[bangtail 0]

No, for sure, not. What I meant is that here-before, improvement was measured in more textures, more details etc. An increased refresh rate doesn't help that.

There hasn't been a lot of discussion in the ARMA community about 120 Mhz monitors, but there are discussions elsewhere for other games. I'm not the only one seeing a difference.

Take it the other way - reduce the refresh rate from 60 to 30 then to 15. What would happen? Your eyes would see a change in smoothness.

Now take it the other way.. faster.

I'm not saying its night and day different. I'm just trying to get out to the community that 120 Mhz monitors are worth looking at.

Now, back to my game, which was already in progress....

I wasn't trying to diminish your purchase bud, I have an Asus 120hz LED and I like it but the only real difference I noticed was that the blacks were a lot better.

I definitely didn't notice D&D, mouse sensitivity etc being any better but all that stuff is subjective.

Enjoy your new monitor :D

@ Jockson: I do have a system that is powerful enough and I don't notice any of the things you are talking about. The difference between 60hz and 120hz is pretty much imperceivable, they are both smooth and fast.

Obviously, if you are buying today, you'd buy a 120hz (or more) but the differences are subtle at best.

Edited December 22, 2010 by BangTail
Technical accuracy

[Jockson 10]

I noticed was that the blacks were a lot better (and that's an LED thing, not a refresh thing).

Actually, edge lit LED backlight does nothing for better blacks/contrast ;)

Try switching between 60Hz and 120Hz on your monitor back and forth and drag/scroll stuff around in Windows. There should be a noticeable difference in smoothness. Long time CRT users usually immediately notice this when they switch to LCD.

[bangtail 0]

Nope, no difference whatsoever (except that the blacks are sharper) ;)

http://www.elementalled.com/leducation/blog/home/led-lights-make-for-sharper-images-and-blacker-blacks-on-screen/

[Jockson 10]

Nope, no difference whatsoever (except that the blacks are sharper) ;)

http://www.elementalled.com/leducation/blog/home/led-lights-make-for-sharper-images-and-blacker-blacks-on-screen/

Not everyone can notice it but it's pretty simple. The higher the Hz, the higher the possible fps. rickidoo is right when he says what would happen if you were to reduce the refresh rate to 30 then 15. Many people would notice 30fps being less smooth and the majority would say 15fps is slow and jerky. So when does smooth become smooth enough so you can no longer perceive any further increase in frame rate? That seems to differ from person to person. While I can immediately spot the difference, it's not something I really care for especially in a slow paced game like ARMA and especially because 120Hz LCDs are all TN and will be for some time.

As for the LED thing, it's only full array LED backlit TVs that benefit from deeper blacks thanks to the use of local dimming technology. Aside from super expensive professional IPS screens, LCD monitors are all edge lit LED which does nothing for picture quality but saves power and allows for thinner design. You are simply seeing better blacks because the LCD matrix used in your monitor is better than your previous monitor. LED vs CCFL by itself makes no difference in static contrast :)

[bangtail 0]

No, it's because the blacks are sharper but you can keep regurgitating tech mumbo jumbo if it makes you feel better.

I don't know what system you're playing on that pins ArmA 2 at over 60FPS with any decent amount of action going on, let alone 120 FPS.

Maybe if you play at 800x600 with everything on low but since I can't maintain 60+ FPS for any period of time (Maybe in a field with not much going on), a 120hz monitor isn't making anything more than an almost imperceivable difference in A2.

You're going to have trouble running any demanding and current games at a steady 120FPS, let alone 60 with high resolutions/detail levels.

PS: The monitor is CCFL Backlit JFYI

Edited December 22, 2010 by BangTail

[Jockson 10]

I don't have a powerful enough system to run ARMA 2 at over 60fps. All I'm saying that someone who does may be able to spot the difference because it is there even if I don't care for it. It's not a placebo effect or anything.

No, it's because the blacks are sharper but you can keep regurgitating tech mumbo jumbo if it makes you feel better.

PS: The monitor is CCFL Backlit JFYI

If it's CCFL backlit then it's not LED is it? ;)

[celery 8]

No, it's because the blacks are sharper but you can keep regurgitating tech mumbo jumbo if it makes you feel better.

If 120>60 is pure technobabble to you, perhaps you shouldn't discuss this topic.

[bangtail 0]

I don't have a powerful enough system to run ARMA 2 at over 60fps. All I'm saying that someone who does may be able to spot the difference because it is there even if I don't care for it. It's not a placebo effect or anything.

There is no system that will run A2 at over 60FPS with any degree of consistency (at high res/detail levels) so it's a moot point.

As for the 'sharper black' issue, I thought it was due to it being Backlit LED but it may well be down to a better LCD matrix as you said. I'm just not that well informed on the subject to argue the point anymore than I have done. I will say that my old NEC WUXI's had better blacks than any monitor I own currently and they were not LED, so logically, I see your point.

Edited December 24, 2010 by BangTail

[Jockson 10]

There is no system that will run A2 at over 60FPS with any level of consistency (at high res/detail levels) so it's a moot point.

I mostly agree, yeah. Very few people will benefit from 120Hz with ARMA 2 mainly for two reasons. Even the latest hardware will have a hard time keeping up with such high fps in the game and also ARMA 2 is not really the type of game where all the extra smoothness would really make much difference in gameplay.

[bangtail 0]

Agreed :)