Well no, but I'm open to argument. What would be the purpose?

Oh I suppose people might like to have a game running in a tiny window.

I wanted to run it in a 320x240 window before. Reason? To capture it and make a video. I've yet to find a way to capture 640x480. It's just too much for current CPU's I think.

It's nothing important, just one reason why someone would want to do it.

Or maybe you're trying to do one or more of the following?
- compressing the video and/or audio on the fly
- capturing directly to the disk instead of using a large memory buffer
- using a suboptimal set of capture tools

Just some things that occured to me.

I think a lot of people use a TV out card and just video tape games and then re-capture that back onto the computer. A lot of recordings I've seen of games look TV-ish.

Could be The memory buffer thing but I don't compress on the fly. That would really kill it. Hell, about 2 minutes of capture at 320x240, 15 FPS is about 1.5 - 2 gigs! I use Camtasia Studio. What it does is dump the capture in a temp file and when you stop capturing it spends some time interleaving and creating the huge uncompressed AVI. Then I compress it.

Here's one I did with the PSX version running on an emulator. You might want to save as, it's not zipped.

Get HuffYUV. Fast, transparent, lossless encoding. TechSmith's Lossless Capture Codec only goes so far (no keyframing unless forced...ugh).

I don't use Techsmith either. Divx, or Xvid mostly. I'll play with HuffYUV just for fun though. I'm still a video newb.

Huffyuv is nice but it seems to play back a bit slowly - probably because the files it makes are still rather large. Good for storing stuff for editing though because it's lossless yet significantly smaller than uncompressed frames.

I want 320x200 resolution so i wont have to worry about all the VESA support problems that come with win200/XP on glidos

Originally posted by Hitler I want 320x200 resolution so i wont have to worry about all the VESA support problems that come with win200/XP on glidos

That's a bit like asking your dentist to yank out all your teeth so you don't have to worry about getting cavities.

As I understand it, the 3dfx version of "Tomb Raider" only supported 512x384 or 640x480 video modes. Besides, dropping to VGA resolution defeats the purpose of emulating the 3dfx version. If you have such great problems with VESA, you should either attempt to replace the video card or consider emulating the Playstation version of the game.

I was thinking maybe a scrollable list of resolutions from 320x200(for XP users like me who still cant get vesa mode to work) to 1600x1200 for 3dfx games than can work at lower then 640x480 like GTA and blood

Hitler wrote:

I was thinking maybe a scrollable list of resolutions from 320x200(for XP users like me who still cant get vesa mode to work) to 1600x1200 for 3dfx games than can work at lower then 640x480 like GTA and blood

I don't understand either of these senarios. Not saying you are wrong. I just don't understand.

The VESA support in Glidos is there just for the FMVs in TR.

It is very unlikely that some Glidos resolution settings will work and others not (except for monitor capabilities). It should always be best to choose your monitors natural resolution, unless running in a window, in which case the resolution will control the size of the window.

I want a320x200 resolution option so I can run GTA, and Blood in 3dfx mode (I dont have TR), since VESA modes dont work on my machine even with gldvesa or nolfb (I always get a distorted screen).

BTW, I have a radeon 7000 AGP 64mb

Hitler wrote:

BTW, I have a radeon 7000 AGP 64mb

How new are your ATI Catalyst drivers? Are they version 3.2? You also may want to check out a firmware update for the card (not for the faint of heart)

Originally posted by Hitler I want a320x200 resolution option so I can run GTA, and Blood in 3dfx mode

A big problem being that 3dfx Glide was never really intended to run at that resolution. It would be difficult (if not impossible) and the results would look dreadful.

...since VESA modes dont work on my machine even with gldvesa or nolfb (I always get a distorted screen).

Hrmm. Might want to check the VESA viability of your card.

Let's try this. Scitech has UniVBE v6.7 for DOS available at:
http://www.scitechsoft.com/products/enterpris … ree_titles.html

Download and install that. In whatever directory you place it, it will contain these files:
README.TXT
UNICENTR.EXE
UNIVBE.EXE
UVCONFIG.EXE
VBETEST.EXE

Start up a command line and run VBETEST and try out some of the various video tests. If it locks up, Ctrl-Alt-Delete, then kill ("End Task") the command prompt.

Also, you might try going to:
http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm
and grabbing the Windows 98 OEM bootdisk file. You just stick a blank floppy in your drive and double-click the boot98.exe to create a Win98 bootdisk. Delete the Drvspace.bin file off of the floppy and copy the VBETEST.EXE file from your UniVBE directory.

Now boot from that floppy and run VBETEST. I'm willing to bet that you will find that some tests pass that would not under XP.

BTW, I have a radeon 7000 AGP 64mb

Another ATI user having VESA problems...Hey DosFreak, I thought ATI cards were better at this type of thing...What gives?

Most of the VESA "problems" reported by users are:

1. Misreporting that the program uses VESA when it doesn't.
2. Confusing a black screen with a VESA problem when it's usually just IO.
3. Build engine or other games that look at the LFB first not working correctly. (Requires NOLFB)
4. Trying to get VESA working on video cards when video card driver support/company support died long ago and video card is a POS that should just diiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Yes, ATI cards are more compatible overall than NVIDIA cards in NT4/2K/XP. Overall. It's not something you'll see with a couple of games but with a broad range. I'm incorporating into my NT Game list but....takes time.

VESA support is always in the BIOS (firmware) in my experience, so (as Schadenfreude said) getting the latest updates for that is the best idea. Still, I can't see how any card made in the last 3-5 years couldn't have at _least_ non-buggy VESA 2.x support on-board. Maybe something else is screwing it up (some goofy motherboard BIOS setting like palette snooping perhaps?)

Originally posted by DosFreak Most of the VESA "problems" reported by users are:

1. Misreporting that the program uses VESA when it doesn't.

Except I'm pretty sure they're right here: I know "Age of Rifles" is VESA only, BLOOD is VESA unless you choose 320x200, not so sure about GTA.

2. Confusing a black screen with a VESA problem when it's usually just IO.

Any easy way of detecting which is which?

3. Build engine or other games that look at the LFB first not working correctly. (Requires NOLFB)

Again, I thought ATI cards didn't need NOLFB and sometimes didn't work properly if you did use it.

4. Trying to get VESA working on video cards when video card driver support/company support died long ago and video card is a POS that should just diiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

That's the easy way out...

Nope, for Build engine games I've always had to used NOLFB for both Geforce & ATI cards. The same with Mechwarrior 2.

Okay, I have an important question that may focus the issue a bit:
When you run VESA apps in WinNT/2K/XP, does it actually use the video card's on-board VESA support at all? From what I understand, the NT family doesn't like to let anything access the hardware that directly. Is VESA an exception to this behaviour? Why then must NOLFB be used under the NT family?