yehaw wrote:So you can see why I'm pissed the way the staff handled the situation. I saw these things early on, nearly everyone in my thread dismissed what I was seeing and tried to debunk my findings as an "opinion".
I took a look back at your thread, and as for me, my most "confrontational" post was, if anything, actually in agreement with your opinion:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3758&start=70#p29981
The Chief (admin), as far as I could see, was basically Switzerland in most if not all his posts (and, at the very worst, derivative of the original subject), and RealNC (moderator) echoed pretty much what I said in his (only) post, suggesting the panels generally weren't ready for primetime in this regard.
The only posters who got even close to hostile were non-admins/moderators.
While I have moderator privileges, I personally limit my use of them to eliminating pure spam posts/users on the forum. I'm not sure about the Chief's or RealNC's stances, but I doubt they make a general practice of deleting posts containing opposing opinions to the OP, so I'm not sure how they (whoever "they" were in this case) could have "handled" anything any better in that regard.
As for you taking issue with your thread being partially re-titled to "opinion," I'm not sure why that's so unconscionable to you.
Some of these 240Hz monitors have better overdrive implementation than other 240Hz monitors, even with the same panel (and you yourself said you only saw two in person, at least at the time), and just because you are right to say that most of these 240Hz monitors have more overdrive issues than 165Hz or lower panels (as they can't reach the GtG necessary to keep up with the refresh rate), doesn't mean the actual perception of this flaw is objectively appreciable to all users exposed to it in real-life use; some may not notice, some may not care.
So, in that context, it is subjective.
But yes, again, overdrive on these 1st gen 240Hz panels aren't able to keep up. That said, the best of these 240Hz panels may have worse overdrive artifacts, but the 240Hz refresh rate itself (at least on the better models) still resolves more detail at 240 FPS.
For instance, here's your own referenced 165 FPS @165Hz vs. 165 FPS @240Hz comparison image from that thread (yes, let's ignore the 165 FPS @240Hz scenario; we've already established overdrive probably isn't as good at lower refresh rate on a 240Hz display as it is on monitors with equivalent native refresh rates, though the photo quality/pursuit tracking in those two photos aren't the best I've seen):
And here's my own pursuit capture of the 240Hz Acer XB252Q I used for the G-SYNC 101 article:
Is the overdrive worse on the 240Hz model than it is on the 165Hz model? Undeniably, yes (note the purple corona, for one). Is the actual resolved detail worse on the 240Hz model than it is on the 165Hz model? No, 240 FPS @240Hz, even with poorer overdrive, further solidifies details, such as the UFO operator's control stick.
Bottom-line, is if you're extremely sensitive to overdrive artifacts, then I think we've established (perhaps even beaten into the ground by now) that you probably aren't going to be happy with a 1st gen 240Hz panel, and you're objectively, factually correct about this specific point from what we can gather thus far on the examples available to us.
That said, this doesn't mean this is a deal breaker for everyone, and the best of these 240Hz monitors, regardless of overdrive performance, do in fact resolve more detail at max FPS/refresh than lower refresh rate monitors do, thus: ultimately subjective, thus: ultimately opinion-based on whether they're worth purchasing over a lower refresh rate gaming monitor.