On 13 Aug 2013, George <[email protected]> wrote: > In message <9581917a53.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk> > Tony Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12 Aug 2013, George <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In message <[email protected]> > > > Frank de Bruijn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In article <a98a207a53.George@george/greenfield.tiscali.co.uk>, > > > > > > > However, the RISC OS-Configuration-Screen-Resolution available > > > > > options don't go higher than 1280 x 1924 x 16M x 60Hz for the > > > > > particular Benq MDF I'm using > > > > > > > > That's to do with the maximum pixel rate. > > > > > > > > See http://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/10/topics/1624 > > > > > > > > I have added these to my MDF and they work: > > > > > > [MDF details snipped] > > > > > > Thanks, Frank: I've done likewise and you're right! > > > > In an earlier post, George said that RPCEmu 0.8.10 / RO 5.17 could > > display 1280 x 1924 x 16M x 60Hz > > Sorry, what I actually meant to say was that 1280 x 1024 x 16M x 60Hz > was the highest available display resolution on 0.8.10/5.20, whereas > 0.8.10/5.17 will go up to 1824 x 1026 x 16M x 60Hz on my system.
Whatever, it doesn't alter the point that I was making. > > whereas RPCEmu 0.8.10 / RO 5.20 could not. The hardware is emulated > > by RPCEmu, which is the same version, in both cases, so that could > > not account for the difference. > > > > RO 5.20 'protects' the emulated hardware by setting the value of > > VIDCBandwidthLimit to 2000000000. For a 32 bbp display, that implies > > a pixel rate of 500 MHz, which should not be a problem for the host > > Windows machine, and which is certainly greater than the 148 MHz > > pixel rate, required George's display. > > > > I'm somewhat confused as to what is actually limiting the display. > > Be that as it may, amending the pixel rates in the MDF file (from a > max. of 144000 down to 108000 here) has made resolutions above 1280 x > 1024 x 16M both visible in the Configuration-Screen options box and > useable. I'm not disputing that reducing the pixel rate has solved the problem. However, as said above, I don't understand why that should be. Tony _______________________________________________ Rpcemu mailing list [email protected] http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu
