Feature Request: Higher Resolutions

Soul Colossus · Post by **Soul Colossus** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:54 am

1280x960 is perfectly fine for full screen, but my desktop res is really high (2048x1536). When I want to run in a window (which I do often, like when using FAQs, IMing, or other multitasking), the 1280x960 resolution is too small. It'd be nice if 1600x1200 or even 1920x1440 were supported.

I realize that these resolutions would be useless in fullscreen as 1280x960 is more than enough and that lower end machines wouldn't be able to pull it off, it'd be cool to have for people with high desktop resolutions.

SquareHead · Post by **SquareHead** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:24 am

Holy! Can I OT this thread a little and ask you what size and kind of display your are using?

Soul Colossus · Post by **Soul Colossus** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:39 am

http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/nabc ... =LE19ISBBQ

The max resolution is incorrect, it's actually 2048x1536 @ 60hz

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:14 pm

I'd like to see a something x 1050 res - it would basically be 1280x960 or 1280x1024 with more borders.

-_pentium5.1_- · Post by **-_pentium5.1_-** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:55 pm

The Giver wrote:I'd like to see a something x 1050 res - it would basically be 1280x960 or 1280x1024 with more borders.

Um... so a 1400x1050 for laptop users? What about 1600x1200?

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:01 pm

-_pentium5.1_- wrote:
The Giver wrote:I'd like to see a something x 1050 res - it would basically be 1280x960 or 1280x1024 with more borders.
Um... so a 1400x1050 for laptop users? What about 1600x1200?

Actually, my laptop is 1680 x 1050. It keeps the aspect ratio when resizing, but it still resizes, even though I disabled it in the BIOS.

Cyrus · Post by **Cyrus** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:58 pm

The Giver wrote:
-_pentium5.1_- wrote:
The Giver wrote:I'd like to see a something x 1050 res - it would basically be 1280x960 or 1280x1024 with more borders.
Um... so a 1400x1050 for laptop users? What about 1600x1200?
Actually, my laptop is 1680 x 1050. It keeps the aspect ratio when resizing, but it still resizes, even though I disabled it in the BIOS.

Update bios for great justice? Or is it the latest version >_>

tehnick · Post by **tehnick** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:13 pm

I'd also like higher resolutions. I'm running 2048x1536 too (except at 75hz).

Post by **Agozer** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:03 pm

Why do laptops almost always have strange resolutions. I'm curious. 1600x1200 is already overkill in my book.

MaxSt · Post by **MaxSt** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:46 am

Soul Colossus wrote:it's actually 2048x1536 @ 60hz

You work at 60hz?

You want to go blind?

Soul Colossus · Post by **Soul Colossus** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:50 am

i don't really notice the difference between 60hz and anything higher unless i really try to. my eyes aren't fucked up or anything as evident by my using 2048x1532 and being able to read the screen perfectly fine. im just lucky

i do use higher refresh rates when i use other resolutions, though.

zoink · Post by **zoink** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:32 pm

anything under 85hz gives me a headache in a few minutes...

LayzieThug · Post by **LayzieThug** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:20 pm

I only notice a difference after switching from a higher refresh rate to 60.... If my computer starts up at 60, I don't have a problem.

MaxSt · Post by **MaxSt** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:43 am

Soul Colossus wrote:my eyes aren't fucked up

well, they will be.

Post by **Agozer** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:54 am

I've noticed that 60Hz refresh on some monitors looks a lot worse than on some others. No, I can't handle 60Hz in Windows either.

SquareHead · Post by **SquareHead** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:40 pm

I wonder if thats why I'm so blind. Spenay many of my teenage years in front of a monitor that would only do 60hz.

Ahhh the memories... ... ...

Soul Colossus · Post by **Soul Colossus** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:17 am

Agozer wrote:I've noticed that 60Hz refresh on some monitors looks a lot worse than on some others. No, I can't handle 60Hz in Windows either.

Well I have a really decent CRT, as linked above. My old POS 19" was way worse at 60hz, the flickering was totally obvious. I tolerated it though, because I absolutely required 1600x1200, and now I can't live without 2048x1536.

Anyways, regarding the actual topic, is it a bad idea to support such high resolutions? I'm not a good programmer, just a little C++, but I'm sure it's pretty simple to impliment.

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:18 am

Soul Colossus wrote:
Agozer wrote:I've noticed that 60Hz refresh on some monitors looks a lot worse than on some others. No, I can't handle 60Hz in Windows either.
Well I have a really decent CRT, as linked above. My old POS 19" was way worse at 60hz, the flickering was totally obvious. I tolerated it though, because I absolutely required 1600x1200, and now I can't live without 2048x1536.

Anyways, regarding the actual topic, is it a bad idea to support such high resolutions? I'm not a good programmer, just a little C++, but I'm sure it's pretty simple to impliment.

If you think it's easy to impliment then try doing it yourself. It is open source...

Post by **grinvader** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:13 pm

Soul Colossus wrote:I'm sure it's pretty simple to impliment.

If every dev got a buck everytime this was said about ZSNES... -_-

I wish.

Nightcrawler · Post by **Nightcrawler** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:31 pm

goatSader wrote:
Soul Colossus wrote:I'm sure it's pretty simple to impliment.
If every dev got a buck everytime this was said about ZSNES... -_-

I wish.

You gotta love that. Where do people get the idea that something is 'pretty simple'? I mean how does the thought processes work when they have NO knowledge of modifying ZSNES. What is it based on?

Post by **Agozer** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:44 pm

goatSader wrote:
Soul Colossus wrote:I'm sure it's pretty simple to impliment.
If every dev got a buck everytime this was said about ZSNES... -_-

I wish.

Yeah, the devs would be filthy rich if that were true. Heh.

Soul Colossus · Post by **Soul Colossus** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:58 am

Wow, you could just say: Actually it's a bit more complicated than that, and here's why...

But nooo... you have to cut me with your jib.

CyberBotX · Post by **CyberBotX** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:04 am

The thing is, unless you know anything about programming, you're pretty much talking out of ignorance, and that's what gets to the devs. What a non-programmers thinks is simple might actually be a pain in the ass for a programmer to do. So that's the reason they probably won't explain it to you either.

Soul Colossus · Post by **Soul Colossus** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:44 am

Heh, actually now that I think back.. http://board.zsnes.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... highlight=

Nach wrote:Got a blinking _ in. And let me tell you it was not easy. Was ripping my hair out for over an hour.

Hope you guys enjoy it.

Please tell me that now that this is touched up a bit more, more of you will use SPC Paths, Snapshot Paths, BIOS/Base paths and some SPC7110 graphic pack paths.

Just for a blinking cursor

Post by **Nach** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:37 pm

Well, on the other hand, adding Same Game add on emulation was easier than adding a blinking cursor. You can't really judge unless you're a programmer and familiar with the problems involved, if not a programmer, what you think is easy could be quite difficult and vica versa.