Yeah, I’ve used my ossc like that before. No idea about the xrgb though.
I didn’t know the ossc did this. I knew about the orientation of the scan lines switching but not the whole image or am I misunderstanding the question.
forget if i asked here, but: my dreacmast (over XRGB) flickers the screen, most noticeably on white screens like the loading one. i tried my RGB cables over CRT and the effect was gone, so i know it’s my setup somewhere.
i’m using the dreamcast profile from the same place most people get theirs i figure, any idea which setting i should tweak to get rid of this effect though?
Not sure I understood KC’s example either, but the OSSC can’t rotate the whole frame. Marqs himself replied to me about that specifically - I asked if it was possible to add this feature, in order to correctly rotate vertical shmups (older ones which came without advanced display settings) on monitors that could only be pivoted in one direction - saying it would require a frame buffer, and thus a whole different architecture for the device.
Well, I do it a hacky kind of way. I set the OSSC to x3 mode widescreen and adjust the settings to fill the screen.
Ah yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, it works well for titles like Battle Garegga and such with vertical scanlines. Played through a few Saturn titles with that setup
@Rich Interesting – thanks for the info!
@Galdelico – you interpreted my (rather vague) question correctly. I was basically curious about using an OSSC to hypothetically facilitate a setup similar to this.
(Not my pic, also this looks to be achieved via emulation through Hyperspin for some sort of front-end.)
I hate stretched 4:3 games on a 16:9 LCD. I’ve been thinking about the variables and constraints with regards to fitting in an LCD or plasma in a cab when the CRT eventually dies, and it’s nearly impossible to find a 4:3 LCD bigger than 19". Due to the space constraints of the cab itself, it makes more sense (to me, at least) to put a 16:9 LCD in vertically, provided there was a way to display a 4:3 image in portrait orientation, but with letter boxing.
Any 4:3 LCD monitor you will find will not provide an adequate gaming experience anyway. Back when 4:3 LCD monitors where available, they ghosted quite badly and many of them have very poor contrast by today’s standards. I owned a few of them personally and they had input lag at native res too.
And they just weren’t that big because, believe it or not, the tech was still very primitive by today’s standards and a 19” 4:3 LCD was actually fairly heavy back in the early 2000s.
Sure, it’s lighter than a CRT, but still, it wasn’t very good. You’re way better off using a modern 16:9 display and installing a custom bezel if borders bother you a lot.
Yeah, monitor performance took a huge nose dive for many years when LCDs hit the market. I was working at an electronics store at the time selling computers, and people were all gung-ho about these new fangled flat screens, buying them up in droves.
As a gamer I found them to be terrible… it wasn’t until about 3-4 years ago that I was finally able to buy a “gaming” LCD that had the performance I was happy with in comparison to CRTs.
1 Like
That’s interesting. I haven’t messed with a 4:3 LCD for gaming since the earlier 2000s, and they were pretty lacklustre back then, now that you mention it. I see 19" 4:3 “arcade” monitor replacements for sale (at a premium, too, it looks like) but have always questioned what separated them from the Dell middle-management special LCDs. Regardless, a 19" 4:3 monitor would leave too much space in the 27" or 29" bezel of a Candy Cab.
Does anyone know what the size of a 16:9 display (horizontally or ‘regular’) would translate into a 29" 4:3 viewable area?
Hmmm… I have one of these…
8ms, rotates, 4:3… It’s not heavy but it’s also not light. Flatron technology. Looked amazing when I was using it last. I should hook it up to a Dreamcast and make a video. Do any Dreamcast games have TATE modes?
I loved that monitor and used it until 2009 IIRC.
A 35.5" diagonal 16:9 ratio monitor would be the same viewable height as a 4:3 monitor @ 29" diagonal.
If we’re talking about sizes of monitors that actually exist, a 32" diagonal 16:9 monitor with black bars would give you a 26.2" 4:3 monitor.
If you’d like to play around with the calculations yourself to see what would work, here’s a site to help.
1 Like
@raskulous @KC-Slater
For a visual comparison, I like using this site: http://www.displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-29-inch-4x3
1 Like
Is that 8ms lag or 8ms gray to gray response time?
It could definitely be the case that I just had bad luck with 4:3 LCD monitors. But I’d be very interested to know how you think it looks after seeing display technology evolve over the last 10 years, and also playing on CRTs (if you do in fact play on them). The 4:3 LCDs really have nothing going for them when you consider the alternatives. They haven’t benefited from LED advancements, and still don’t even come close to CRT tech in responsiveness or image quality.
Their contrast ratio and refresh rate is also going to be the poorest of any display you can buy.
Compare pixel count for an even more stark contrast!
Well, I specifically recall researching a lot before splashing out what I think was like $600 (maybe $700?) at least for that monitor. I went to Circuit City in Allentown to track it down. The fact that it had that 8ms delay was a huge selling point for me at the time. I know a lot were around 14ms or more at the time so it was something I was acutely aware of, especially since I was in prime computer gaming review mode for Computer Games Magazine at the time.
I have a Sony Trinitron CRT that I use for retro gaming. If I can ever find the time, I’ll try to get things set up to have a look at the monitor now compared to modern and similar time tech.