UI / screen resolution

Will it be possible to play at 1024x768. Still have a 17 inch old CRT and nowadays most games set the default resolution at start higher... (I think fullscreen my old CRT doesn't even support higher and I sometimes need to edit outside the game the config cause otherwise it gives me "no signal" error and I can't even access the ingame options).

Also a lot of games where you can set 1024x768 are not optimized(buggy UI especially with long bars with tons of icons on them are not visible completely then).

I want to now early if I need to buy a new display.... but if it still works I'll continue to use my old one. Still working fine and no reason to throw it away.

It's probably a good idea to start looking around - if anything you'll enjoy the game better. You might stumble over a decent offer.
If you're in the EU - take a look at the pixmania site - they often have some good deals.

The last time I have seen a CRT was a while ago, but in my memory they were able to display quite high resolutions in relation to their size? 1024x768 is pretty low for 17". How old is that thing?

It's older than the computer which I bought(put it together myself and bought all the stuff CPU, mainboard, ... instead of a full computer) 2009. :mrgreen:

Windows desktop I can set it to higehr than 1024x768. Also windowed applications(games) Only fullscreen games... but I don't know if it is every game... maybe it is the game or video card that is restricting here.

If good zooming is possible and the UI maybe a bit moddable I think 1024x768 could still be playable.

Edit: I checked Guild Wars 2 and I can set there fullscreen much higher... and I read somewhere that everything Windows offers you for desktop is supported by your display? (and other stuff not even shown there).

So this might be some problem of the other games in combination with drivers and video card cause I only get it at some games it seems? ... or it might be that games are by default set to something I can't even set at windows desktop... I don't remember which games and what default settings they had which I had to change in some ini file.
I only remember there was som blue message at the display saying "no signal" as if it weren't connected... but I could hear sound.

Edit2: Yeah I think that were a few games that really had the default resolution very high like 2xxx something... that's why I prefer config tools outside the game or by default a low setting or at least an ini/config file where it is easy to change.

Might play at 1024x768 or the next higher with this aspect ratio.... I think 1280x960 then.

... or wait... that's already not supported. Strange. The first value can go much higher. like 13xx something and 2nd value lower 800 is something which is possible... but of course looking strange at the 4:3 17 inch display.

If I set it to 1280x960 it get the error message. Like not supported at that 2nd value vertical (height) pixels. Seems I really need to stay at 1024x768 then or buy a new display.

1440 x 900 possible
1600 x 900 not possible (limit on first value somewhere between 1440 and 1660)
2nd value 960 not possible even if first one only 1280 like 1280 x 960.

1152x864 is something Guild Wars 2 offered... highest with 4:3 aspect ratio possible at my old display it seems.

But only ingame... strangely at the desktop which is at 1024x768 at the moment I can set 1280x960 without problems... maybe I need to set the desktop to 1280x960 to make it work ingame? I don't know why there is this different behaviour... desktop possible but ingame fullscreen it is not.

Considering FA and SupCom 2 supported 1024x768 I expect it to be possible.

That said, I'd honestly recommend looking for a cheap full HD 22 inch screen. I've seen them for as little as €105,-, $99,- or British £91,- and they improve the gaming and general PC experience a lot.

My old 17" Dell CRT (bought with a desktop in 1996) could manage 1600x1200 @60Hz

If you can set the resolution in the OS higher, the monitor can handle higher. It sounds to me like the issue is one of refresh rate; you need to work out what refresh rates the monitor supports at the various resolutions (Windows should be able to list them) and then ensure the game (or DirectX) uses the correct refresh rate at that resolution. Since any contemporary graphics card supports PnP display capability discovery, it's likely the monitor itself doesn't, so you may need to research (or experiment) to find the ones your monitor can support, and create custom resolution definitions in Windows that DirectDraw / Direct3D can reference. e.g. 1024x768@60Hz, 1280x1024@50Hz, 1600x1200@25Hz etc. (your monitor capabilities may vary). Look for the model number and check the manual or manufacturer website to see if they have them all listed for you.

I can heartily recommend getting a new monitor though. Even though manufacturers seem to think that 1080p is enough pixels for even a 23" display these days, you'll be surprised at how much less desk a flat panel LCD or plasma takes up, and you can get them dirt cheap; a quick check at my usual supplier shows a 1080p 21.5" widescreen Acer for £85 (around €100) including sales tax, and it's likely you'll be able to find better deals (or better monitors at a similar price point) if you shop around. From a game UI perspective, most natively support widescreen (since consoles use widescreen) and a widescreen display can allow games to show more info on horizontal UI elements

Do not forget that 99% of CRT only support correctly 4:3 resolution :
640*480
1024*768
1280*1024
1600*1200
...

Other choices could lead to some errors or very strange display.

Crap, didn't saw some edit on the posts.
Almost useless answer from me.
Well, it happens

Thanks... I think it really is the refresh rate. While playing around a bit more with Guild Wars I noticed:

1152x864 was possible as I already mentioned above. Usually max refresh rate is 85hz at 1024x768 and I tried this at 1152 and I got the error "ungültig" (invalid) is the correct message, not "no signal".

So it might be for the higher resolutions even more low for max refresh rate. Trying this later.

Ha yes, refreshing rate.
High resolution => lower refreshing rate
Small resolution => faster refreshing rate

(think about the technology it was ! An electron cannon that is bombarding one after the other each cell of the screen...)

Stupid question, but what is the exact model of you screen ?
You could maybe find some specifications on its capacity on the manufacturer's web site.

I currently work at a recycling depot. CRTs keep coming in. People are replacing them, but it seems there are still a lot in use. Hell, a lot of people say "it still works" when they bring it in. CRTs are immortal :shock:

Oh and 1280*1024 is not 4:3 ;-)
It's 1280x960 (then I get 1.3333 if dividing at the other only 1.25).

Non 4:3 still possible but not looking good.

Windows is listing all possible resolutions and all possible refresh rates and in the list of all possible modi it shows all the refresh rate / resolution combinations you can get if combining all the resolutions / refresh rates...

but not taking into account that some are not possible. It does not know that at 1280x960 apparently max refresh rate for me is 70 Hz... after changing resolution it sets refresh rate to lowest: 60 Hz... and then I still can set it higher... until I get the error at 72 Hz(goes 60, 70, 72, ...).

Might try to set to 1152 or 1280 permanently and try to get used to it as long as I'm still using this old CRT.

Edit:

That is true ha ha. Don't know how old this one is. I can't even find info on the internet anymore on this one... other than some ebay offers for 1 Euro which don't have the full technical info. I tend to use stuff a long time. Using computers 5-10 years... and I even have one harddisk almost 10 years old... I always hear others with harddisk problems... but then again I'm not running 24/7 but still a lot of hours each day. SMART values still shows okay for that old one and it was from some cheap computer from "Aldi" (german discounter ha ha).

The default refresh rate to try for any resolution is 60Hz, then 50Hz just in case, then possibly 25Hz for the high resolutions (unlikely but not impossible)

Some monitors support higher then 60Hz (for instance I could go to 120Hz for 1024x768, and 85Hz for 1280x1024). You would want to check the manual or manufacturer specifications to be sure exactly which refresh rates the display supports though. 60Hz was the default support implemented by most CRT manufacturers

If you cannot find any information on your model on the internet at all, I would recommend trying:
1024x768 60Hz
1280x960 60Hz, 50Hz
1280x1024 60Hz, 50Hz
1600x1200 60Hz, 50Hz, 25Hz

Also check the display properties in Windows, if it lists an enormous amount of resolutions and refresh rates, then it cannot determine what your monitor actually supports and is just listing them all. At that point experimentation may be the only way to truly know :|

Addendum: my 1996 vintage Dell CRT still worked when I finally replaced it 2 years ago; I just got fed up with the occasional random degaussing and decided it was time to get a 120Hz (3D capable) flat screen for the nVidia 3D thingy. I bet if I brought it down from the attic and dusted it off it'd fire right up...

Wouldn't surprise me at all! The tv my parents have only has a coaxial connection. Not even RCA inputs. It's still truckin' just fine :mrgreen:

The only things that tend to go wrong with electron guns are heating element failures (no picture at all) or dodgy deflector connections (one or more colours stop working, or you get everything on a vertical or horizontal line). If you're halfway competent at soldering and know how not to kill yourself when exposed to HV sources (hint: turn them off and earth everything before you open them), you can pretty much fix them indefinitely until the vacuum tube actually breaks. I accept no responsibility for injuries or deaths incurred while messing around inside a CRT, you do so at your own risk.

They don't accept digital inputs though, so now is the time to think about getting an LCD / LED panel and save a huge amount of desk space. Seriously, that was the first thing I noticed when I replaced mine; just how much extra space appeared for my keyboard and mouse :mrgreen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

I remember saving a lot of money with my Big CRT when i was a student.
Was so big, so massive that the heat produced was keeping my little room warm and good all winter.

Haaa, good times...

Making sure the power is off and all the capacitors have bled out is the main thing. As long as nothing still has a potential difference across it, CRTs are as safe as any other lump of glass and metal with a vacuum inside it

I'm just waiting for the lazy bums in the display industry to step up and start making monitor sized 4k (2160p) displays. Seriously, when you can fit a 1080p display in 5" (Galaxy S4, Sony Xperia S), having 23" monitors maxing at 1080p is blatant laziness / profit maximisation :evil:

Although I might have to upgrade from my GTX 460 to be able to fill all those pixels at a decent frame rate...

I just want a 30" monitor with the same pixel density as my macbook pro.

Done : http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/4/439429 ... patibility

4 grand? OK, I'd expect they need to upgrade the control hardware to deal with the higher pixel count (4x as many pixels as 1080p), but that still seems like too much of a premium for what's on offer. It's definitely out of my price range

At least one is being made. 2 years from now they should be down to a few hundred for the 20-30" models, unless the panel manufacturers are still price fixing even after the last fiasco...