I really like the idea of using a 1280x1000 resolution for 320x200 material on my TFT. That would mean that every pixel is drawn four times on horizontally and five times vertically. While this isn't a 1:1 pixel ratio (its 1.28:1), remember that a 320x200 resolution has a natural pixel ratio of 1.6:1. CRTs were almost always in the 4:3 aspect ratio and generally the pictures were stretched to fill the screen.

Actually, 1280x800 as found on widescreen laptops is even better: 4x scaling, and many games look _better_ when they are distorted that way, because original game developers didn't bother to account for non-square pixels. X-Com's earth looks like an oval on a true 4:3 screen, but like a circle on a 1280x800 screen, for example.

`Moe` wrote:

Actually, 1280x800 as found on widescreen laptops is even better: 4x scaling, and many games look _better_ when they are distorted that way, because original game developers didn't bother to account for non-square pixels. X-Com's earth looks like an oval on a true 4:3 screen, but like a circle on a 1280x800 screen, for example.

Yikes! That's very bad. Weren't they supposed to play the game before releasing it!? Where's Quality Control when you need it?

Regarding the topic, ux-3, have you tested this tool?

http://www.pagehosting.co.uk/rf/

I'm not sure if it can override the refresh rate in low resolutions, but it may be worth a try...

Regards.

RefreshForce is the tool I've used since it was released. Back in the day, only Matrox had good monitor refresh rate adjustments in their drivers (both ATI and nVidia seemed oblivious to the problem). RefreshForce works very and copes with resolutions both high and low.

I use and recommend ATI Tray Tools for forcing refresh rates by resolution on ATI cards. However, I don't have an LCD/TFT display.