Do you just get an out of range if you manually crank up the refresh?

Nothing to add but I too have never understood why the high end LCDs that do support higher refresh rates crap the bed on non-native resolutions, even in the case integer or 1:1 is supported.

The most aggravating is how random 1600x1200 support is, I’ve had 1080p screens accept and display 1600x1200 with interpolation but 4k that just say unsupported resolution.

rmay635703 wrote on Today, 01:29:

Nothing to add but I too have never understood why the high end LCDs that do support higher refresh rates crap the bed on non-native resolutions, even in the case integer or 1:1 is supported.

The most aggravating is how random 1600x1200 support is, I’ve had 1080p screens accept and display 1600x1200 with interpolation but 4k that just say unsupported resolution.

It's all down to how their controller has been programmed, and whether or not the input signal fits within the timing thresholds that they've chosen rather than the physical capabilities of the panel.

RedCharles wrote on Today, 00:40:

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts on how to get 1600x1200 to run at 120hz?

The manual says it's not supported, so if you try to force it and the monitor says out of range/unsupported signal, the monitor's board is not programmed to accept it. According the manual, 640x480, 800x600, 1280x1024, 1600x1200 will top out at 60-75hz while 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1440x1080 and 1920x1440 will run up to 240hz.

The only feasible way to change it would be to modify the screen's controller firmware, or to use an external scaler than first changes 1600x1200@120hz to a supported resolution on the panel

NeoG_ wrote on Today, 02:06:

RedCharles wrote on Today, 00:40:

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts on how to get 1600x1200 to run at 120hz?

The manual says it's not supported, so if you try to force it and the monitor says out of range/unsupported signal, the monitor's board is not programmed to accept it. According the manual, 640x480, 800x600, 1280x1024, 1600x1200 will top out at 60-75hz while 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1440x1080 and 1920x1440 will run up to 240hz.

The only feasible way to change it would be to modify the screen's controller firmware, or to use an external scaler than first changes 1600x1200@120hz to a supported resolution on the panel

I tested this. 1280x960 @ 240 shows up with no customization as a default resolution, but it won't run. When I set it up as a custom resolution with CVT reduced blank, the menu says 240hz, but the monitor says 170hz.

I was able to get 1024x768 to run at 240 hz with some custom resolution tweaking. Set it to 239hz in the menu, monitor says it's 240. FEAR ran at 1024x768 @ 239/240hz. Awesome.

However, no matter what I do, CS 1.5 will only run at 60hz.

RedCharles wrote on Today, 04:51:

However, no matter what I do, CS 1.5 will only run at 60hz.

I think the old GoldSrc engine is capped at 60fps by default, and disabling VSync kind of permits up to 72fps.

The same limitation applies to Xash3D/FWGS as well. At least with Xash3D/FWGS I need to change another variable to unlock the FPS limit.

Can't remember which exactly at the moment but you might be able to find some info online...

I don't think most engines for PC games from the early 2000s would have such a low frame rate cap aside from console ports. 60Hz was not a refresh rate that most people were using on CRTs at this point, and most were not using LCDs yet.

I ran everything at 85Hz-150Hz (usually with vsync and triple buffering if possible) on various CRTs from 1999 until around 2010 when I bought my first LCD.

Just doing a quick search online the pre-Steam versions of some Goldsrc games were capped by default at 72fps, but were later increased to 100fps. That sounds about right for the time period.

Ozzuneoj wrote on Today, 05:38:

I don't think most engines for PC games from the early 2000s would have such a low frame rate cap aside from console ports. 60Hz was not a refresh rate that most people were using on CRTs at this point, and most were not using LCDs yet.

I ran everything at 85Hz-150Hz (usually with vsync and triple buffering if possible) on various CRTs from 1999 until around 2010 when I bought my first LCD.

IIRC 60Hz resulted in visible flickering on CRT monitors, and the ones I used back then at least permitted up to 85Hz at 1024x768 which feels better.

However, some games at that period had a tendency to default to 60Hz and cannot be changed, which is kind of bad for CRT, though not as bad when using LCD.

I got my first LCD around the same period as you (~2010), when my main CRT monitor failed and could not output anything anymore.

LSS10999 wrote on Today, 09:59:

IIRC 60Hz resulted in visible flickering on CRT monitors, and the ones I used back then at least permitted up to 85Hz at 1024x76 […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on Today, 05:38:

I don't think most engines for PC games from the early 2000s would have such a low frame rate cap aside from console ports. 60Hz was not a refresh rate that most people were using on CRTs at this point, and most were not using LCDs yet.

I ran everything at 85Hz-150Hz (usually with vsync and triple buffering if possible) on various CRTs from 1999 until around 2010 when I bought my first LCD.

IIRC 60Hz resulted in visible flickering on CRT monitors, and the ones I used back then at least permitted up to 85Hz at 1024x768 which feels better.

However, some games at that period had a tendency to default to 60Hz and cannot be changed, which is kind of bad for CRT, though not as bad when using LCD.

I got my first LCD around the same period as you (~2010), when my main CRT monitor failed and could not output anything anymore.

Yeah, I don't think too many PC gamers at that time were willing to deal with the 60Hz flicker unless they were really not affected by it at all, or they just didn't realize it could be fixed.

Admittedly, it was a very long time ago, but I don't remember having issues with refresh rates or frame rates in the vast majority of PC games. In the "post-DOS" but "pre-LCD" days, being locked to 60fps or 60Hz would have been seen as a pretty serious oversight\problem for most 3D games. This is part of why console ports got so much flack early on... they tended to have a lot of hard coded frame rate, resolution or refresh rate issues that PC gamers were accustomed to either not having or at least being able to fix.

Sorry, I'm probably way off topic of the thread at this point. 🤣

No, you're right on target. I'm thinking about the xp 60 hz bug, and how that may apply to a lot of what I'm doing.

I'm going to look into get CS 1.5 to run at 99-100 FPS.

Edit: I looked into getting a 21" CRT monitor, and they cost as must as a new 4k Oled 27". And spending $600+ to buy a 21" CRT on it's last legs is insane. So finding a 4k oled that scales old resolutions well is great for me.