DanteUK wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 18:54:

Only thing I've read on other forums is dropping sound quality in windows to 44 from 48 helps. I tried that, didn't help.

They fixed that bug in 1.2, IIRC. As for your crashes, do a fresh install with just the HQ texture pack loaded, then play. See if it crashes. If it does, it's likely that you're running out of VRAM, and I'd suggest not using the HQ texture pack. If it runs fine with a clean install, it's a mod that's messing you up.

So start adding mods back and play, and see which ones messes you up. Note that 1.4 changed quite a few things with regards to perks, skills and other behind the scenes stuff, so most of the mods that directly affected those are now broken.

Creston

DanteUK wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 18:54:
Hate to bring the thread back on topic but ...

Anyone else get 4/5 times more Crash-To-Desktop than before the Patch/HD DLC ?

I rolled back all the mods, updated my video drivers but still I'm getting CTD's every 10 minutes or so.
If I disable the HD update using the nexas mod manager thingy then I can play for 20-30minutes before I get a CTD.

Really annoying as before the last patches I'd played just over a 100 hours with only maybe 2 or 3 CTD's a week.

Only thing I've read on other forums is dropping sound quality in windows to 44 from 48 helps. I tried that, didn't help.

Have you tried removing and installing the latest SKSE loader...if you're using SkyUI, that is?

Hate to bring the thread back on topic but ...

Anyone else get 4/5 times more Crash-To-Desktop than before the Patch/HD DLC ?

I rolled back all the mods, updated my video drivers but still I'm getting CTD's every 10 minutes or so.
If I disable the HD update using the nexas mod manager thingy then I can play for 20-30minutes before I get a CTD.

Really annoying as before the last patches I'd played just over a 100 hours with only maybe 2 or 3 CTD's a week.

Only thing I've read on other forums is dropping sound quality in windows to 44 from 48 helps. I tried that, didn't help.

Creston wrote on Feb 7, 2012, 23:40:
Edit : I could have saved myself the trouble of typing all this out. Hehe.

Oh well.

Whats amusing to me is all the errors beth has in the high res pack that that link details. If they would have grabbed a few of the modders and let them test the pack before release for just a few hours, they could have had it released in a far better state lol.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 00:57:
Dammit. I just wish I could download the hi-rez pack and try it out! Unfortunately my PSU blew up last week (electrical flash/cloud of smoke/the works) and my replacement won't get delivered until Monday

Of course then I just have to hope it didn't fry anything else in my system...

PSU is one of the things I keep a spare on hand. Its one of the most frequent failed parts (aside from things like mechanical hdds with moving parts). Its also one of the things you can get a decent brand with decent wattage spare for about $20 online, but if you need it in a hurry the cheapest at best buy is like $80 and its a horriblah thing like diablotek which might catch fire on you.

This comment was edited on Feb 10, 2012, 16:29.

Surely the opposite would be the case, with people trying to justify why their cheap plasma TV is better than the more expensive LED ones?

A plasma isn't cheaper, I don't know where you got that idea that they are somehow an inferior, cheaper technology. If anything the opposite is true. I own a Panasonic TC-P50ST30 and my GF has a Samsung UN46D8000, both are great TVs but the Panasonic is better at everything - playing games, watching football, playing a blu-ray, etc. It has a higher charted color accuracy, it produces better blacks, it has zero motion blur and almost nil input lag. I'm not ashamed to own the Samsung, don't get me wrong it's a good TV but if you made me choose..

So you're stating that a) I'm uninformed, and b) I chose to buy a more expensive TV because I couldn't accept that cheaper plasma TVs were better?

You're taking this far too personally. No offense but it's not about you and your televisions, I'm sorry if I made it sound that way or seemed snide. I was not trying to insult you or put down your purchases, I'm sure you made the best decision you could in the limited viewing context presented. I'm sure in showroom conditions with no actual calibration other than basic picture settings I might make a similar decision about quality. I doubt every plasma model and LCD model in the world were lined up for comparison so maybe you're correct about your specific scenario. I never said that "cheap plasmas are better than all LCD", I even said the opposite. There are best in price range models and for many that is some specific Panasonic plasmas that Beamer and Verno mentioned.

It's nothing personal, it is no reflection on how good your televisions are for your needs, just that objectively weighted better options might exist in the same price range. You don't need to bold marketing bits for me, I can recite them just as easily about the cons of either technology and LCD has many. There are many considerations other than picture quality and I noted that in my reply.

I'm not here to change your mind or make either of us feel bad about what we bought. Someone else asked specifically about plasmas and the pros and cons compared to LCDs. I don't really care if you watch TV on a 19" Haier or a 50" Samsung, whatever makes you happy in my book. Ok back to Skyrim for me!

This comment was edited on Feb 9, 2012, 18:22.

Dades wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 16:10:
LCD televisions will usually have their brightness settings maximized to blot out the sun to attract attention. Plasma and CRT televisions can't hit those same levels of brightness output regardless of what setting the manufacturer imposes. Showroom conditions are deceptive and made to sell televisions to uninformed consumers, you can't reliably judge a television based on the criteria observed there.

Dades wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 16:10:
I'm glad you're happy with your purchases but it seems more that you don't like the idea of something superior existing than you are interested in talking about the best quality televisions.

So you're stating that a) I'm uninformed, and b) I chose to buy a more expensive TV because I couldn't accept that cheaper plasma TVs were better?

Dades wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 16:10:
If I bought a plasma tomorrow and a better LCD television came along I'd happily recommend it to people but the only competition going on there is usually at high end prices on the 50+ inch models.

As would I. Again, your barbed comment portrays me as someone unwilling to accept that better TVs exist / will come along, when I made an informed decision based upon direct comparison. I'm well aware that the brightness on LCD/LED TVs is cranked up and the colours are typically over-saturated to such a degree that you would never use them like that in an every-day situation. I have absolutely no loyalty to a particular technology - here I simply evaluated all the options and chose the models that I deemed to be the best from a quality perspective, not a value one. As soon as OLED / AMOLED displays cost a sensible amount, are available in a better selection and are readily accessible I will move over to them. But from personal experience with plasma I don't accept that they are better than LED.

Dades wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 16:10:
I'm not trying to put you down or something but we're talking about a slightly broader scale than personal observation. Both LCD and plasma have their inherent limitations that personal opinion can't trump.

And here you go again, stating that my "personal opinion" is wrong because you say that plasma is better. Never mind that I've compared these monitors side-by-side - that the motion on plasma doesn't look as smooth, that the image isn't as sharp, that I tested different picture settings on the displays.

Honestly, I give up.
I'm sorry that I'm wrong.
I'm sorry that I paid more for a LED TV that is obviously inferior to a cheaper plasma one.
I'm sorry that I think the motion on plasma monitors isn't as smooth.
I'm sorry that I'm gullible and blindly bought into LED because it's brighter in store rooms.
I'm sorry that I chose the more energy efficient and dramatically lighter / slimeline LED technology.
Next time I'll buy the cheaper plasma technology and just tell people it's better.

That's obvious. All manufacturers will promote the settings that result in the best sales - that applies to plasma to. But the same applies to plasma. Unless you're trying to tell me that plasma manufacturers want their TVs to look crap to customers?

Sorry this is so long, I hate doing this style of replying but I wanted to give you good answers instead of dumb sarcasm or one line replies.

LCD televisions will usually have their brightness settings maximized to blot out the sun to attract attention. Plasma and CRT televisions can't hit those same levels of brightness output regardless of what setting the manufacturer imposes. Showroom conditions are deceptive and made to sell televisions to uninformed consumers, you can't reliably judge a television based on the criteria observed there. Colour accuracy, contrast and several other things will be completely out of the norm in a showroom. I don't recommend someone buy a plasma that way either. The average consumer probably couldn't notice a legitimate difference between either one unless they were watching a hockey game so in the end this only really matters to a small portion of the market.

Again, I dispute that. Plasmas are cheaper, have excellent contrast and viewing angles. But the picture isn't as sharp and movement doesn't look as natural (despite the higher refresh rates).

You're welcome to your opinion but I think if you do some objective research you'll see its slightly misinformed. Picture sharpness isn't defined by the display technology alone, there are several factors. Movement looks perfectly natural on a plasma, that's why they are the most recommended option for sports while LCD televisions still struggle with interpolation and processing to attempt to correct the problem. Viewing angles are also based a few factors but typically better on plasmas when you start to approach middle tier models though again this is really more of a set by set thing.

I also had to live with the annoying spotlighting effect that's very common in LCD/LED televisions even when I could find one that produced acceptable blacks. I find Vizio and the newer Samsungs have the best output in this area but the former is dogged by quality control problems and Samsung has some very slow processing which results in heavy input lag for gaming.

LED HDTVs have come down in price nowadays, having better brightness and comparable viewing angles; they also now have better black levels. I have a 42" LED 100Hz TV attached to my computer and a 47" LED 3DTV in my main room - both were top end models. I compared the picture quality of both directly to the plasma models on display - from the cheapest to the most expensive - and they were both noticeably better. We can each pull out particular models that have advantages over the competing technology but my purchasing decisions are based explicitly on quality, not price.

I'm glad you're happy with your purchases but it seems more that you don't like the idea of something superior existing than you are interested in talking about the best quality televisions. That article is pretty vague and has no actual benchmarks, there are many that disagree with it. AVSForum has some good reviews from professional calibrators as well. I own two LCD televisions, not plasmas but I've had the pleasure of observing both in actual dark room conditions and seen the professionally calibrated benchmark results on several websites. I doubt you did any actual calibration or comparison beyond eyeballing them in a store. There's nothing really wrong with buying a television that way, I'm not trying to put you down or something but we're talking about a slightly broader scale than personal observation. Both LCD and plasma have their inherent limitations that personal opinion can't trump.

If I bought a plasma tomorrow and a better LCD television came along I'd happily recommend it to people but the only competition going on there is usually at high end prices on the 50+ inch models. My LCD televisions are perfectly viewable and offer great quality but better options do exist, both in the LCD market itself and on the plasma side. If someone asked me to recommend a television for a very bright room with a lot of natural sunlight then I'd recommend an LCD because it just makes sense. But if someone asks me what has the best overall picture quality for all types of media in a normal viewing environment then right now its plasma. I haven't seen the CES roundup yet so maybe that will be changing in the future, we will see.

This comment was edited on Feb 9, 2012, 16:39.

Dades wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 21:19:
There is no such thing as LED HDTVs, that's industry marketing. There are LCD HDTVs that use LED backlighting.

I'm well-aware of that but there was no confusion over what I was referring to.

Dades wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 21:19:
You're talking about cheap plasmas and cheap plasmas are still usually above the quality of cheap LCDs.

At the same price point plasmas have a lower resolution (typically 1024x768) than LCD (typically 1920x1080). This is especially problematic for 3DTVs, where horizontal resolution is critical.

Dades wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 21:19:
Showrooms are purposely staged to sell you specific profit margin items and LCDs always have their settings dialed to the maximum to assist with this. In fact most TVs now come with a store setting which purposely misrepresents their intended picture settings.

That's obvious. All manufacturers will promote the settings that result in the best sales - that applies to plasma to. But the same applies to plasma. Unless you're trying to tell me that plasma manufacturers want their TVs to look crap to customers?

Dades wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 21:19:
If someone wants a TV with the best picture though then the past several years running that's been a plasma model (Pioneer Kuro, Panasonic GT/VT models). You have to go to very high end LCD models to see the rough equivalent and most usually can't do the black levels of a plasma nor render motion without a lot of obvious panel processing.

Again, I dispute that. Plasmas are cheaper, have excellent contrast and viewing angles. But the picture isn't as sharp and movement doesn't look as natural (despite the higher refresh rates). LED HDTVs have come down in price nowadays, having better brightness and comparable viewing angles; they also now have better black levels. I have a 42" LED 100Hz TV attached to my computer and a 47" LED 3DTV in my main room - both were top end models. I compared the picture quality of both directly to the plasma models on display - from the cheapest to the most expensive - and they were both noticeably better. We can each pull out particular models that have advantages over the competing technology but my purchasing decisions are based explicitly on quality, not price.

Verno wrote on Feb 9, 2012, 08:52:
I'm also surprised to see anyone suggest LCDs have better image quality than plasmas, almost sounds like confirmation bias as it's pretty widely recognized on most major AV forums that the mid to high end plasmas have the best image quality. Normally it's just a question of whether people can stomach their downsides or not.

Surely the opposite would be the case, with people trying to justify why their cheap plasma TV is better than the more expensive LED ones? I'm basing it upon my own personal experience, comparisons I've read online, forum posts and sales people at the store (obviously taking into account that they're trying to shift more expensive products). Obviously a lot of it is subjective and it obviously depends on the quality of particular models. Like plasma, most LCDs TVs are crap at the low-end - we're in complete agreement there; my comparison is only talking about the high-end models. It looks like we're not going to agree on this matter.

PS - Burn-in is also an issue for LCD displays, though not as severe. The first HDTV I bought was back in 2006; a 37" 720p LCD. The picture quality was excellent for the time (again, was able to compare it with others in a show room) but after about 3-4yrs there were noticeable patterns where the Sky UI (which is bright blue) had burned into the screen, lasting longer each time.

^Drag0n^ wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 23:58:

Creston wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 23:38:
Holy shit. Did he get one made out of fucking concrete? My 46" plasma weighs like 40 odd pounds?

Creston

Maybe the engineers misunderstood what they meant by adding a ballast?

;-)

^D^

Hehehe.

Creston

As mentioned, LCDs can look better in artificial environments. They have their vivid mode kicked on in dark showrooms. But yeah, you'll never get black on them, and LED lighting creates as many issues as it solves. Plenty of halos with local dimming, and edge-lit is pointless.


Image retention is still an issue on plasma, but burn-in isn't. Image retention just means you get the HUD from whatever you're playing faintly there for a few hours. Honestly I've done 6+ hour marathons and seen this exactly once. It wasn't during anything playing, either, but on a screen with no signal I could see the gun/ammo part of the GoW3 HUD. I ran the wipe lines for a minute and it was gone. This is the way it works on good sets. Lesser sets may have it for longer periods of time, but a year of use, mostly video games, and I've seen it once.

Creston wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 23:39:

^Drag0n^ wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 18:23:
Thanks guys. I was unaware that the burn-in potential was no longer an issue, and that was the only thing steering me away, in all honesty.

^D^

It's still there, but you literally have to ABUSE your plasma in the first 100 hours for it to really take effect. Like, start up your Xbox, put the TV on 100 brightness, and then leave it sitting at the fluorescent green dashboard.

If you use it normally at 75 brightness, it'll never have that issue.

Creston

Yeah exactly. You really have to go out of your way to do it. High brightness/contrast settings with static images displayed 24/7 for long periods of time. If you use the TV like a normal human being then you'll be fine. A friend of mine was paranoid about it so I told him to leave the brightness and contrast at 50 for the first 100 hours.

I'm also surprised to see anyone suggest LCDs have better image quality than plasmas, almost sounds like confirmation bias as it's pretty widely recognized on most major AV forums that the mid to high end plasmas have the best image quality. Normally it's just a question of whether people can stomach their downsides or not.

Creston wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 23:38:
Holy shit. Did he get one made out of fucking concrete? My 46" plasma weighs like 40 odd pounds?

Creston

Maybe the engineers misunderstood what they meant by adding a ballast?

;-)

^D^

^Drag0n^ wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 18:23:
Thanks guys. I was unaware that the burn-in potential was no longer an issue, and that was the only thing steering me away, in all honesty.

^D^

It's still there, but you literally have to ABUSE your plasma in the first 100 hours for it to really take effect. Like, start up your Xbox, put the TV on 100 brightness, and then leave it sitting at the fluorescent green dashboard.

If you use it normally at 75 brightness, it'll never have that issue.

Creston

Beamer wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 15:54:
Plasmas suck in sunlight. It's the only issue with them. If the sun hits them they're virtually useless, and even during the day they feel a bit dim. I have the 58VT25, which was the 2010 flagship, and adore the thing. Not a single day goes by that I don't marvel at how smart a purchase it was. But for that 25 minutes a day it's in sunlight it's frustrating. Fortunately I'm watching it during those 25 minutes maybe once a month.

LCD/LED, especially locally dimming, is nice, and a must if you get a lot of direct sunlight where you're placing your TV, but only a few brands are worthwhile (definitely not Sharp), and the 2011 TVs were a step back from the 2010 in image quality. There was a push for thinness and looks over image quality, and there was a move to glossy to make up for this, which did a lot to negate the direct sunlight advantage of LCDs. Indirect bright rooms, though, it still triumphs by being much brighter than a plasma.

But man, a high quality plasma that's been professionally calibrated is a thing of beauty.

Strange. I wonder if that's a personal thing. I tend to watch our Plasma right during the time when the glare from the window is visible in it (it's an angled glare, however, more of a "I can see the window in the reflection") and it really doesn't bother me. I forget it's there within second. At the same time, when sunlight hits my LED (window is straight behind it), it annoys me so much that I finally just give up and close the curtains even though it's 2pm.

Edit :

One thing to keep in mind that no one mentioned is that they are hefty, my friend has one that is like 75-100 pounds easily

Holy shit. Did he get one made out of fucking concrete? My 46" plasma weighs like 40 odd pounds?

Creston

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Feb 8, 2012, 21:04:
Plasmas have pretty poor image quality (that's why they're cheaper; most aren't even true 1080p resolution) - noticeably inferior to LED HDTVs.

You're talking about cheap plasmas and cheap plasmas are still usually above the quality of cheap LCDs. There is no such thing as LED HDTVs, that's industry marketing. There are LCD HDTVs that use LED backlighting. Most are crappy edge lit TVs, they don't even do local dimming which means they could never, ever achieve the detail levels you would see in a plasma or CRT. LCDs also have terrible grey level conversions compared to CRT or plasmas.

Showrooms are purposely staged to sell you specific profit margin items and LCDs always have their settings dialed to the maximum to assist with this. In fact most TVs now come with a store setting which purposely misrepresents their intended picture settings. If you're going to judge a plasma by how you saw some crappy 720p Samsung plasma then you should also judge LCDs by the shitty Bestbuy house brands.

There are other considerations than picture quality alone and LCDs have many positive features that I'm not mentioning here. If someone wants a TV with the best picture though then the past several years running that's been a plasma model (Pioneer Kuro, Panasonic GT/VT models). You have to go to very high end LCD models to see the rough equivalent and most usually can't do the black levels of a plasma nor render motion without a lot of obvious panel processing.

OLED shows a lot of promise and seems to be a fantastic technology bridge between LCD, Plasma and CRT but the manufacturing costs are still in the stratosphere and will be quite some time. I'm really looking forward to affordable ones but I think it's going to be another 3-5 years.

Plasmas have pretty poor image quality (that's why they're cheaper; most aren't even true 1080p resolution) - noticeably inferior to LED HDTVs. Every showroom I've seen you can spot that plasma displays without even trying. CRTs had many advantages but were hugely impractical, suffered from curvature (even with so called 'flat' models), required calibration to properly fill the screen, are unbearable at 60Hz (due to updating pixels linearly as opposed to simultaneously) and still flicker slightly at 75Hz, were slow to change resolution, emitted radiation (you know... that dangerous stuff), etc.

CRTs are dead and rightly so. Now the choice is between:

TN: Low-latency but poor viewing angles and poor colour reproduction;
S-IPS/E-IPS: Great viewing angles and 10-bit colour reproduction but noticeable input lag and no support for 120Hz;
OLED: Great colour with no input lag but obscenely expensive (over £4000/$6300) and with limited availability (OLED).

OLED seems to be the technology that ticks all the boxes (apart from handling of non-native resolutions) but it's a few years before price will start to come down to sane levels.

Thanks guys. I was unaware that the burn-in potential was no longer an issue, and that was the only thing steering me away, in all honesty.

^D^

On the TV side, I'm torn...did you notice recently that you can get a 60" Sharp Aquos Quattro for under a grand now at Worst Best Buy?

Any TV that cheap at that size is likely skimping on part quality or image processing.

The 2011/2012 plasmas have much better glare filters which makes using them in a well lit living room more realistic these days. Beamer and Verno are correct about everything else, if you want a television then plasma is the best bang for your buck. One thing to keep in mind that no one mentioned is that they are hefty, my friend has one that is like 75-100 pounds easily. It's usually not a big deal because once you get it on a stand it rarely moves but just something to keep in mind.

Many consumers are swayed by false conditions they observe in box stores. Most companies will dial up brightness to the maximum which makes LCD televisions appear more attractive in casual viewing but doesn't hold up under real conditions. Plasmas are also hamstrung by past maladies like image retention, picture burn in and high power consumption. Most those things haven't been true for several years but public education takes forever to swing the other way and box store employees aren't well trained. Plasma televisions aren't as attractive to younger shoppers who want sleeker electronics with good aesthetics, particularly females.

It's unfortunate because plasmas represent the best feature spectrum for many types of media viewing but most people simply don't know or understand why. I still have an old LCD that I spent a bundle of money on but when it dies I am definitely getting a plasma.

This comment was edited on Feb 8, 2012, 16:45.

Plasmas suck in sunlight. It's the only issue with them. If the sun hits them they're virtually useless, and even during the day they feel a bit dim. I have the 58VT25, which was the 2010 flagship, and adore the thing. Not a single day goes by that I don't marvel at how smart a purchase it was. But for that 25 minutes a day it's in sunlight it's frustrating. Fortunately I'm watching it during those 25 minutes maybe once a month.

LCD/LED, especially locally dimming, is nice, and a must if you get a lot of direct sunlight where you're placing your TV, but only a few brands are worthwhile (definitely not Sharp), and the 2011 TVs were a step back from the 2010 in image quality. There was a push for thinness and looks over image quality, and there was a move to glossy to make up for this, which did a lot to negate the direct sunlight advantage of LCDs. Indirect bright rooms, though, it still triumphs by being much brighter than a plasma.

But man, a high quality plasma that's been professionally calibrated is a thing of beauty.