Much as I hate getting in to stupid internet arguements, above is the claim you made. None of the other posters have substantiated your claim that ALL TVs are made by either LG or Samsung. None of them have even substantiated your claim that ALL LCD panels are made by one or other of those manufacturers, in fact they've refuted it by naming one other manufacturer.
IF you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. I know for a fact for example that Panasonic make Plasma panels as did, up until very recently, Pioneer. So that's a further two TV manufactuers that prove your statement to be wrong.
Also, just because the panels are made by the same company does in no way mean that the TVs they are used in are of the same final quality. This is especially true of digital TVs where the associated circutry and processing has a huge impact on the quality of the picture. So even if LG did make all flat screen panels that wouldn't automatically mean that LG made the best flat screen TVs, which was the premis of your argument.
Take a look here:
http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/best_buy/lcd/best_buy_lcd.htm
http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/best_buy/plasma/best_buy_plasma.htm
Should help you choose.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Each to their own really, the choice between LCD and Plasma really comes down to what size you're going to get, (Can't get plasmas under 37" anyway), and what you intend to use it for and the environment you'll have it in. Personaly I love films, and I watch them in a relatively low light environment and it's placement dictates a max of 37". So I went for a plasma as IMO, (and empirical testing shows), LCDs just didn't have black enough blacks, dark scenes always looked dark grey at best on all the LCDs I saw, (and that was in a bright shop environment!). In fact, I think even the blacks on plasmas aren't that great if you want to watch a film in a very low light level. But on the flip side if you prefer gaming/sports or have the lights on or in daylight, then LCDs extra brightness is a strength and you wouldn't ever notice their poor black performance.
Oh I have my facts ok. Seems obvious that you don't.
You never actually specified LCD TVs, you said ALL TVs. Which makes your fact not a fact at all.
As for Plasmas being crap, keep believing it if it makes you feel happy. Empirical measurements against broadcast and film industry standards say otherwise, but don't let facts get in the way of your bias.
Depends, what do you call a good deal? absolute cheapest? or best price for the best TV at that size? Also, you looking for LCD or Plasma (personally I'd go Plasma).
Depends on how far you sit from your TV and how good your eyes are. Even at 42" you are not going to be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080 unless you sit closer than 8.5ft (2.6m), you simply cant resolve the difference with your eyes, (and that is at the limit of possible human resolution - most people dont have anywhere near that good eyesite).
There is a lot of crap talked about the need for 1080 but for many people the resolution just isn't required for the size of TV they intend to get and where they intend to view it from.
On top of which there are so many other factors that affect the picture quality apart from resolution that there are actually many 1080 TVs out there that look worse than 720 ones, (although 720 TVs are getting pretty hard to find these days).
Take a look at these:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/0105viewvrez/
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Article/How-Far-Should-I-Sit.php
http://www.dtvforum.info/index ... ic=9241&hl=resolution
Look below, pick a screen size and note how close you need to be to a 720 screen (dotted purple) in order to get max detail then look at how close you need to be to a 1080 screen of the same size to get max detail. The distance in between is where a 1080 will be better than a 720 but only by an amount that is relative to how close you are to the "max detail" line for 1080. eg if you sit 8.5ft away from a 42" screen you're just not going to see the difference despite you actually being able to see "better" than 720 at that distance.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Sad but true.
As humans we survived for hundreds of years without the need to be instantly contactable at all times. We didn't need it then, and we don't need it now. I can't think of a single scenario where it is imperative that you must talk to someone when they call, (if it's a real life endangering emergency then the person should be calling the emergency services anyway not you). People can wait.
Depends on the content of the call. If you're stressed out by the conversation , (eg it's an urgent work call or you're having an argument with your partner), then your full attention will not be on the act of driving.
I have a very simple view on this. A car is a potentially lethal weapon. When you're driving one you should be doing one thing and one thing only and that's concentrating on driving.
Personally I would go as far as removing all sat navs, radios, CDs etc etc from cars, reduce the sound insulation so that you can hear the tyres on the road more clearly and generally make cars less comfortable places to be in so that everything is focused on driving while you're in one.
But then I'm an ex Motorcyclist so I have first hand experience of just how unobservant and removed from concentrating on driving the vast majority of car drivers are. On a motorcycle not concentrating whilst riding can get you killed, (nearly always by a car driver :really
. Modern cars are far to much like sitting in your living room watching the road via your tv screen IMO, it makes people overly complacent and drive overly agressively because they feel invulnerable. If I had my way I would do everything possible to take away that feeling of invulnerability from car drivers.I agree, at least mostly. I think nations are a completely arbitary human construct and nationalism on the whole is more divisive than uniting. Having said that though, I don't usually feel embarrassed about being British. Britain has given a lot to the world, (as have many other nations of course).
Nope "God save the queen", Sex Pistols version
Good link Bean0, especially the further link to the often misunderstood definition of Country. Hence my choice of icon. I live in the Country called the UK of GB & NI so that is the flag I choose.
Actually I consider myself to be a European as much as British, because of my part European roots. So I for one wouldn't mind having an EU flag option.
I actually think the R8 looks better in the flesh. 
But it is a big car, the pictures don't give a true indication of it's size, especially next to a 911.
Blue,
I don't disagree that it's a great car, hell it should be for £70k !! but I actually feel the opposite to you about interiors. Intereriors are where you spend your time. To be honest if I had a choice between two identically performing cars and one looked like a turkey on the outside but had a beautiful interior and the other was a work of art on the outside but 80's Renault on the inside I would take the former every day. An extreme example I know but I don't spend my time in a car looking at it's reflection in shop windows thinking how good it looks, (not saying that you do either!). I want the interior to look good and have a feel of quality.
Though to be honest for the price of an R8 I expect both and unfortunately I'm no fan of the current trend of using Aluminium inside cars. Aluminium has always had a cheap look/feel to me and I just can't persuade myself to feel any different about it.
I know full well that the 911 isn't a perfect car, but I'm also well aware that it's a better car than I could ever be driver and I just love the look from the outside and especially the interiors, (in the post 2000 cars anyway, the older car have cheap looking instrument panels).
Ps when I say the 911 has heritage, I mean the 911 itself, not Porsche the marque.
But it is a big car, the pictures don't give a true indication of it's size, especially next to a 911.Blue,
I don't disagree that it's a great car, hell it should be for £70k !! but I actually feel the opposite to you about interiors. Intereriors are where you spend your time. To be honest if I had a choice between two identically performing cars and one looked like a turkey on the outside but had a beautiful interior and the other was a work of art on the outside but 80's Renault on the inside I would take the former every day. An extreme example I know but I don't spend my time in a car looking at it's reflection in shop windows thinking how good it looks, (not saying that you do either!). I want the interior to look good and have a feel of quality.
Though to be honest for the price of an R8 I expect both and unfortunately I'm no fan of the current trend of using Aluminium inside cars. Aluminium has always had a cheap look/feel to me and I just can't persuade myself to feel any different about it.
I know full well that the 911 isn't a perfect car, but I'm also well aware that it's a better car than I could ever be driver and I just love the look from the outside and especially the interiors, (in the post 2000 cars anyway, the older car have cheap looking instrument panels).
Ps when I say the 911 has heritage, I mean the 911 itself, not Porsche the marque.
Who knows. Bruno Senna is a very talented driver. Only time will tell.
a) No such thing as perfect weight distribution.
b) 4WD isn't always better.
c) Bigger engine isn't always better.
d) errr.. it is? compared to which 911?? (anyway it needs it, its 4WD - twice the transmission losses).
e) Neither do I actually. But I care if a car has LED lights, I think they look naff, (and the interior is horribly laid out and garrish with too much aluminium all over the place).
d) I like Audis too, and agreed the R8 is a lovely looking car from the outside otherwise.
In a shoot out on a track, (with decent drivers - ie ignore any Top Gear tests!), it's a close call between an R8 and even a 911 Carrera 4S. All the GT models wipe the floor with the R8 on a track.
But anyway all that's moot, I just prefer the look of the 911. Plus it's got heritage, it's a 100% reliable car even for daily transport, better fuel economy, smaller so easier to find parking, and it's at least got some lugage space. How both cars behave at the limit is irrelevant to me as I'd never be driving either anywhere near it.
illepallWell that depends on if you're stupid enough to use an atmospheric dump valve, when the manufacturer specified a recirculating one, just to get as "cool" sound when you lift off or change gear when they always result in messed up fuel mixtures and worse performance.
There are no producton road cars that I can think of that use atmospheric dump valves these days. So yes, atmospheric valves are of no purpose what-so-ever in that sense.
Which is what a properly tuned engine should sound like. Not like a bucket of bolts being rattled about.
Add the build quality, the interior luxury and the fact it goes around corners and won't fall apart in 3 years and in comparison the Aston is far better VFM than any modern plastic american muscle car. I wouldn't waste 20p let alone 20k on a modern american muscle car. Older versions however those are a different matter, at least they've got some historical interest.
ps when you first said cobra I was assuming you meant a real cobra as in a Shelby AC Cobra circa 1960's. Now that is a proper muscle car !
Easy really
a) R8 is a namby car with chavy LED lights
b) R8 is physically way too large.
c) R8 doesn't have the Kudos of a 911, even if it may technically be a better car, which is debateable - which one comes out best in tests very much depends on the particular 911 model, (R8 can't match any of the GT models), and who exactly is driving them,.
OK I'm sorry.. but that's just sad.
I seriously can't believe people are voting for cars from the same manufacturer as their Top 5 "want to own" cars, (even if they've really owned them !!).
I would love to own the following (in no particular order)
1. Aston Martin DB9 or Maserati GranTourismo S (can't decide)
2. Porsche 911 Carrera S
3. Triumph TR6
4. Lotus Exige Cup 260
5. 2008 Honda Fireblade
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Too fusst for my tastes. There's no good reason to have all that overcomplicated aero on a car that will only do 150 tops. Keep the dams, splitter etc simple and stylish IMO.
This looks much better: http://www.vwtuningmag.com/volkswagen-scirocco-bodykit/
Brakes are the one thing that are completely unrealistic in driving sims. Even if you do become adept at modulating your brakes to avoid lock up in LFS you're not relying on the same inputs to sense lock up as you would be in real life. In real life even relatively crap brakes give you some feedback through the pedal. In sims feedback is non existant.
I would dearly love to have a realistic braking system available used in all sim pedals, (I don't believe it would be that hard just requires a pressure sensitive rather than position sensitive type potentiometer), then we'd clearly be able to tell the users who are drivers IRL IMO.
I would dearly love to have a realistic braking system available used in all sim pedals, (I don't believe it would be that hard just requires a pressure sensitive rather than position sensitive type potentiometer), then we'd clearly be able to tell the users who are drivers IRL IMO.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG