|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. |
1
2
|
A5 question about display adapters |
Don Freeman
Member #5,110
October 2004
|
bool al_get_display_resolution( int &w, int &h ) { ALLEGRO_DISPLAY *display = al_get_current_display(); if ( !display ) return false; w = al_get_display_width(display); h = al_get_display_height(display); return true; }
-- |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
|
He doesn't want the current resolution. He wants the resolution before setting the display. |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Shouldn't the native resolution typically be the maximum resolution supported by the display? |
jmasterx
Member #11,410
October 2009
|
Evert said: Shouldn't the native resolution typically be the maximum resolution supported by the display? Not always with CRTs, but for LCDs && LEDs I'd say so. But theres always that small bunch that still use CRTs Because with CRTs sometimes higher resolutions were supported at a cost of a headache-causing 60 Hz refresh rate. Agui GUI API -> https://github.com/jmasterx/Agui |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
jmasterx said: Because with CRTs sometimes higher resolutions were supported at a cost of a headache-causing 60 Hz refresh rate. Indeed, if you were trying to set a decent mode on a CRT, you'd want to skip any of the modes that only show up as 60hz, unless ALL of the modes are only 60hz... That'd be one crappy CRT. -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
I thought the limit on refresh rate was to keep down the clock rates for pixel sets? If the low res refresh rates were the same as the high res rates, the clocks per pixel would be much lower, so you could boost the refresh rate without making it impossible for the transistorized circuits to change color from one pixel to the next. They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: I thought the limit on refresh rate was to keep down the clock rates for pixel sets? I don't know about you, but if I set a CRT to 60hz, it gives me awful headaches. The flickering is just too much. -- |
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
|
Back in the day, 60hz was fine, because that's all you had! Never had an EGA monitor? n00bs! They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Arthur Kalliokoski said: Back in the day, 60hz was fine, because that's all you had! For lower resolution modes, it was ok. For higher resolutions, not so much. |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Evert said: For lower resolution modes, it was ok. For higher resolutions, not so much. I guess it depends on what you mean by "lower resolutions". My old 15" CRT back in the day gave me insane headaches at 1024x768. My newer 20"+ CRTs all do modes higher than 1600x1200, but I dare not set them, for there madness lies. -- |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Thomas Fjellstrom said: I guess it depends on what you mean by "lower resolutions". My old 15" CRT back in the day gave me insane headaches at 1024x768. 640x480 or 800x600 is what I was thinking of when I said that, which is what my CRT could do at >60Hz in the mid to late 90s. My last one did 1024x768 at 85Hz or something like that, which was also fine. |
|
1
2
|