I've heard that "ghosting" can be a problem. I'm looking to buy a 17-19" lcd or a 21" CRT. Thoughts on which would be best for flight simming?rgds,billg

I'm using a 17" LCD monitor and do not see any ghosting effects at all.My choice for a LCD or a CRT monitor was not based on whether it would be best for flight simming (I do that most of the time) but it was based on depth of the monitor and heat generation. Larger screen sizes require more real estate and they generate much more heat. I simply do not have depth space available for a 19" or 21" CRT and if I did, the heat generation in those monitors would just be too much for the limited space that I have available.One positive side value of this LCD is that the screen is protected with an anti-glare screen that does not show finger smudges.Hope this helps,

Wow. Touch-screen for the VC cockpits instead of the mouse!! It would get realer...wait, that's more real!sj

Ghosting is not really the correct term as it refers to a "permanent" echoed ghost image caused by signal interference.One problem with older LCDs was response times, and "ghosting" has been used to describe this effect too. The result was that when displaying motion such as you see in games or when just moving the mouse cursor quickly, the display would blur. For example, if you moved the mouse from left to right quicly, the cursor would just become a blurred line. I was very annoyed by this with my old 486 laptop. On my current laptop, this is not a problem.This is not a problem with new LCDs at all. They have excellent response times.The one thing I have against LCDs is that their resolution is fixed and usually limited. Most LCDs go up to no more than 1280x1024, cheaper ones go up to 1024x768. 1280x1024 is an especially bad res, because the aspect ratio is not the correct 4:3/ ratio. 1024x768 is actually better IMO, but it is too low for games.I prefer a good CRT that does 85Hz at 1600x1200 because the image quality is better in a sim like FS2004. I have started running FS2004 at 1600x1200 even on my older CRT that only does 75Hz. The image flickers a little but once you get used to it, the image quality is great.Also, if you go below the "fixed" resolution of the LCD, e.g. 1024x768 on a screen that's "locked" at 1280x1024, the image size is either reduced, resulting in a thick black border around the image, or, the image is resampled to 1280x1024, resulting in a very blurry image.So, for games or flight simming, I prefer CRTs. For office machines and similar, LCDs are better because they take up less space, they run cooler, the colors are better and they are sharper.A "work" computer with an LCD screen, and a "play" computer with a CRT, would be the best, if you have the desk space and money for that.That being said, LCDs are not "bad" for flight simming. If you can live with playing at a lower resolution, they offer better clarity and are easier on the eyes because they don't flicker like CRTs do (even at 100 Hz, it's a bit tiring when looking at them for hours on end).

Well, all I can say, having changed recently from a nice Sony 17" CRT that served me very well for years to a Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 LCD, is I would never ever consider returning to a CRT.The quality of image from the DVI output of my Radeon 9800 Pro at the native resolution of 1280x1024x32 is little short of outstanding with an excellent 20ms monitor response time. I could not believe the transformation in FS2002 and FS2004. Unless you have a topflight (expensive) CRT there is just no comparison. I purchased a Samsung 17" LCD Monitor for my wife and after setting it up properly returned to my trusty Sony CRT. Within a week the Sony had been relegated to the spare bedroom as I now debate how best to dispose of it.Everything appears as it should, The image is pin sharp and colours are beautiful and accurate with the correct monitor profile installed. I am a digital photography enthusiast and was amazed how much better my images looked on the LCD screen - a positive pleasure to look at, admire and show off ;) Even Windows appears better and that's saying something!Oh, and one other thing. What surprised me is how much easier the bright LCD image is on the eyes. I can look at the screen for ages without feeling the need to turn away to rest my eyes periodically as was the case with my Sony. Certainly, I could turn down the contrast on the CRT but this degraded the image quite significantly.The only down side became apparent when I was faced with trying to find a workaround in certain games to force an ingame resolution of 1280x1024 when the nearest available option was 1280x960 (admittedly the correct 4:3 ratio). Luckily, in every case I have been successful so I am a very happy chappy. I doubt whether many would notice much difference between the two ratios anyway.Says it all really.Mike

Well, I'm insanely obsessed with image quality and crazed over flight simming, so my next upgrade from this already excellent screen will be the new Samsung 240T 24" PC LCD & HDTV. Here are the specs for this wonder:Industry's 1st 24" Viewable HDTV ready WUXGA LCD 1920 x 1200 Active Native Resolution Extra Wide 170 degree Viewing Angle Analog / Digital / S-Video Input Picture in Picture, Picture-by-Picture Digital Zoom to 64 times Advanced Image Scaling Switchable Aspect Ratio (16:10, 5:4 or 4:3) Easy Access One Button Auto Adjustment Remote control (OSD and Input Selection) Supports Windows, Macintosh & Sun Microsystems All this for only $2770!!Noel

Your question relates to the use of LCDs with FS9, and I confess that I can't be fully responsive because I no longer use FS9. However, I was in the market for a new monitor six months ago, and since I found some obvious differences between LCDs and CRTs--including some things that seem to go unmentioned in virtually all of these monitor comparison threads--I'll offer a few observations that might be helpful.In the computer store, when a close-up image of a colorful flower pops up on the demonstration LCD, it can certainly be an attention-getter. The colors appear deep and vivid, and it's easy to be very impressed. But when I looked at the text on a number of LCDs I was less than impressed--it just wasn't as sharp as what I see on the CRTs. But perhaps the biggest drawback I saw with virtually all the LCDs that I took the time to check--including the higher priced models--was uneven reproduction of what's supposed to be a single-color screen. Using a single-color AOL introduction screen that I'm familiar with at home, I found the LCDs reproduced that same screen unevenly from the top of the image to the lower part--in other words, they produced a gradient, a slow transition from a lighter shade to a darker one in the vertical direction. For me that sort of uneven illumination makes these LCDs non-starters, notwithstanding the rich colors.I also ordered a mid-priced LCD from Amazon, and hooked it up, and found the first few files listed in a Windows Explorer window to be bold, and the folder icons to be a sharp yellow, but further down the screen--after the first five rows or so--the text in the file names appeared to be a regular font (no longer bold), and the colors in the folder icons lost the vividness seen at the top. I tried all kinds of different angles for viewing, and concluded that it was the monitor and not me that was generating the uneven reproduction of text and colors, so I sent it back. Of course, there also appears to be an issue with the viewing angle on these kinds of monitors: if you're trying to demonstrate something to someone standing off to the side, that person is probably seeing an image considerably less vivid than what you can see right in front of the screen.Eventually I settled for a run-of-the-mill 19" Viewsonic A90f+ CRT monitor. It has one very important feature that will be one of the main considerations when I buy my next monitor--the UltraBrite on/off switch on the front panel. With UltraBrite turned on, my photos appear lifelike; with it off--which for me is necessary when I'm working in a document--photos appear unnaturally dull. I love my photos, and this feature is very important to me. UltraBrite is also recommended for use with games and video clips, etc.While preferences obviously vary, I hope some of this will help you figure out what to look out for when you're shopping, even though it's not necessarily related to the sim.

Maybe one of you LCD gurus can give me some pointers here...I tried FS9 with a Viewsonic VX900 19 in. LCD. The picture is great EXCEPT for considerable flashing in the ground textures, especially the lighter ones. No problem with sky,clouds, runways, etc. This hapens only when I'm moving, when paused, the picture is perfect.I've already played with refresh rates and VSync, no luck.I've got a GF FX5900U with the Det 45.33 drivers (which cured the known flashing issue with this card) and a P4 2.8 with 1 gig RAM.Any ideas?Thanks,Mark

I just bought a Viewsonic VP211B LCD. It is 21.3" viewable, has a contrast ratio of 600:1 and a 25ms. It is OUTSTANDING!! I just passed off my older Dell 21" CRT to my girlfriend. This LCD works without a hitch for FS2004 on the DVI input with a 9800Pro card. Only trouble with these is finding them! They are brand new to the market and have sold out very quickly as they are of a very good quality (better than Samsungs 213T model which is the competitor to this model). After a two day search and a call to Viewsonic, I found that at the time, Sept 8, only 1 company in North America had them in stock and they only had 3 of them left. Made a call and had one of those shipped from Toronto (thank God for Canada :-lol).