LCD Monitors

[beresford]

Will your video software cater for the resolutions of LCD monitors so that the picture can be displayed in the correct aspect ratio (probably with black bars at the sides)?

[NicolaFan06]

That's down to the native resolution of your LCD, and your video card drivers more than anything Kuju will be writing, if your LCD uses an obscure native resolution, possibly not, depending on your drivers, otherwise it'll probably be fine.

[BrianB]

There is a tendency for manufacturers to now make only the 'wide screen' monitors, the 'old square' monitors seem to be being phased out.

The problem is:

The old 'square' monitors were generally 1280 x 1024 in both 17" and 19" sizes, and this is a good screen ratio to use for MSTS to get a nice amount of detail.

but, the new wave of 19" 'widescreen' monitors are: 1440 x 900,

- the problem is the vertical height has been CUT DOWN to only 900 instead of the usual 1024, and so MSTS is considerably stretched and distorted unless you run it in a 'Window', but this would then have to be restricted to 1024 x 768 - certainly not as good as 1280 x 1024.

I also have a 15.4" widescreen laptop, but its resolution is 1280 x 800, again a 'bad' resolution for MSTS - I have to run MSTS in an 1024 x 768 window again.

The only way round this at the moment is to use a 20" or 22" widescreen, which is generally 1680 x 1050 - this will bring you back to a nice 1280 x 1024 resolution when run in a Window.

What the new Train Simulator developers should do is include a couple of new resolutions in their 'customisable settings' that match the new widescreen monitors - as the TS runs as a variable sized 'view' into a 3D virtual world, it should be easy to get realistic looking TS views at 1440 x 900, or 1280 x 800, or 1680 x 1050 to suit the new crop of monitors.

[Easilyconfused]

Interesting views there. I have a LG Studioworks 221U monitor that is a nominal 21" CRT. My old PC with the 128 MB ASUS Ti4200 can run that at 1600 * 1200 at 85 Hz but the new widescreen Dell D620 will only do 1024*768 @ 60 Hz - the drivers won't go any higher although my LCD screen in the office will do some hideous 1200 * something screen that scrunches up the icons and some of our monitoring systems screen displays.

Newer is not necessarily better .....

John

[MaxFreak]

Newer is not necessarily better .....

John

Yep ,, It's all about "Standards" or the lack thereof - 4x3 , 5x4 , 16x9 , 16x10 And this consumer is left wondering when this **** will end.

Check the Wiki for Display Resolutions

The most common native resolutions found in LCD monitors:

14-15" 1024x768 (XGA) 4:3
17-19" 1280x1024 (SXGA) 5:4
20"+ 1600x1200 (UXGA) 4:3
19” (Widescreen): 1440x900 (WXGA+) 16:10
20”+22" (Widescreen): 1680x1050 (WSXGA+) 16:10
24” (Widescreen): 1920x1200 (WUXGA) 16:10
30” (Widescreen): 2560x1600 (WQXGA) 16:10

Most game devs should be able to cater for the above .

~A~

[KlausM]

Since 99% of the new monitors use square pixels, it shouldn't be too complicated to adapt to any aspect ratio of a monitor. Also, as far as I know, monitors report their screen dimension nowadays. If not, a program can still allow the user to enter the physical dimensions of his monitor in the preferences dialog.

Klaus

[AndiS]

My old PC with the 128 MB ASUS Ti4200 can run that at 1600 * 1200 at 85 Hz but the new widescreen Dell D620 will only do 1024*768 @ 60 Hz - the drivers won't go any higher

Is the frequency important for TFTs? I thought it would only matter for CRTs because there the ray really moves across the screen and the rest of the time it's dark except for the afterglow. For TFTs I believed the only problem would be that they do not react fast enough for fast movements, not that the flicker could fatigue the eye. Am I wrong, or are you talking about CRTs or should I sleep a bit more ..... ?

[jkxx74]

I think he means that LCDs only like certain refresh rates regardless of resolution. So while a CRT might operate at resolution X with refresh rates from (usually) 55 Hz to say, 100 Hz, the LCD will only work at 60 or 75 Hz. With older hardware that resolution might not supported and this could cause problems.

[keber]

>>> With older hardware that resolution might not supported and this could cause problems.

What old hardware? My computer from 1993 could easily provide 60 Hz at 1024x768 (almost certainly even more, but I didn't have better monitor). I very much doubt, that someone would use so old equipment with KRS.

[Easilyconfused]

Just to clarify - our home PC has a 21" CRT that will support up to 1600 * 1200 at 85 Hz. When I work at home I use a KVM switch to connect the docking station for my laptop to the big monitor (as a registered home worker I had to agree NOT to use the laptop display all day). The old Dell D610 worked fine right up to 1600 * 1200 @ 85 Hz. The new Dell D620 will not go above 1024 * 768 @ 60 Hz and I can see the screen flicker. It is down to a lack of suitable drivers - I guess the D620 is just too new to cope with such an old monitor but I know how much replacing the monitor with a 21" LCD would cost.........

Now in the office at work I have some Dell LCD monitor that does all sorts of weird widescreen resolutions so no problems there.

Cheers

John

[NicolaFan06]

Since 99% of the new monitors use square pixels, it shouldn't be too complicated to adapt to any aspect ratio of a monitor. Also, as far as I know, monitors report their screen dimension nowadays. If not, a program can still allow the user to enter the physical dimensions of his monitor in the preferences dialog.

Klaus

The shape of the pixels isn't important, so much as having to code support for a large number of obscure display resolutions, and HUD's and GUI's etc that will usually be designed in a square shape, meaning either a large empty space either side, or a badly stretched image, unless the devs specifically go out of their way to make sure that they provide alternative versions of everything for all the potential ratios (ratio being more the problem here than resolution)

This is the main reason I still stick to using CRTs over TFTs - I can pick any res I like within the max limits of the monitor, and know it will fill the screen and look ok, not stretched or extra blocky to compensate for the monitor only having one real resolution (which is what TFTs really do, they have one real resolution, and the rest are simulated by doubling pixels up, or using less pixels to display an image that doesn't fill the screen. I also tend to find that the equivilent sized CRT will go up to a resolution higher than that of an equal sized TFT (usualy equivilent to the TFT 2 inches larger, although not always true)

As Easilyconfused wrote - newer is not always better

[KlausM]

First, LCDs can be operated on a lower refresh rate, since this does not create the flicker effect known from CRTs. Especially on LCDs connected via an analog interface, it is better to use lower frequencies, since the overall bandwidth is lower and therefore the signal quality is better.

Regarding the shape of the pixels, it is quite important. If the software assumes that they are square and not rectangular while the pixels are actually non-square, a circle would be drawn as an ellipse. People who tried to draw a circle on a CGA display 20 years ago know what I am talking about.

Using a 21 inch 1600x1200 display with a digital interface, I would never ever go back to CRT display voluntarily.

Klaus

[AndiS]

It is down to a lack of suitable drivers - I guess the D620 is just too new to cope with such an old monitor but I know how much replacing the monitor with a 21" LCD would cost.........

The dark side of the industry. Try using something as you would use a normal object (e.g., a table), simply not replacing it while it is not broken, and they will treat you as a pariah.

Happened to me when I bought a bargain printer only to find out that those who bough the brand of the printer shortly before had no interest in maintaining the loyalty to that brand any longer and simply told them "what you are not allowed to say in a family forum".

As for a replacement, you would only need a 19" TFT as they are as large as 21" CRTs, I am told. And they are rather affordable IIRC.

[NicolaFan06]

I tend to find the opposite, 19" TFTs tend to offer a lower size and resolution than a 21" CRT (sometimes only offering the same maximum resolution as a 17" CRT in fact)

[AndiS]

I meant the total display size (in real measured inches or centimetres).
In a TFT, the diagonal of the visible area (the one occupied by the pixels) is more or less the nominal one. In CRTs, it is much less. E.g., my 17" has a visible diagonal of below 39cm, 17" would be 43cm. 39cm would be 15.4", so if I replace my 17" CRT by a 15" TFT, the area on which the screen content is displayed would be nearly the same.

The total resolution, or the pixels per inch, are another issue, and one on which I cannot comment, because it depends on how far your face is from the display during normal work, and which programs you use (and the default font size in these programs), plus your seat, how much time you look elsewhere, whether you do any physical activity beyond the daily transfer of your body from bed to PC and back, etc. etc.