Planetarion Forums

roadrunner_0 · 31 Dec 2004, 16:04

a friend has brought his comp round for me to install HL2 for him, as he doesnt have a net connection.
so, after much to-do'ing (bastard steam FS) i get in installed

it then take a ****ing age and a half to decrypt, and update and stuff, but, you know, i've got it installed, i'm feeling fairly lucky at this point

it runs... ONLY TO TELL ME THAT IT CANT RUN ON THIS ****ING MONITOR
(its claiming that the monitor is at the wrong refresh rate fs

GD help, your my only hope!

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Dec 2004, 16:09

...change the monitor's refresh rate?

Still Truckin' · 31 Dec 2004, 16:18

defrag your mouse?

roadrunner_0 · 31 Dec 2004, 16:21

tried, this system is using a nvidia card, and has a nvidia manager, but the only refresh rate i can find is 60hz, which i assumed the game would work at
but the message i get from the game is:

'out of scan range:
28.7kHz /45 hz

which i dont understand at all???

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Dec 2004, 16:29

I wish there was some kind of forum for half life 2 support.

roadrunner_0 · 31 Dec 2004, 16:31

there probably is, but i dont trust people i dont know

and your answer made baby jesus cry mark

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Dec 2004, 16:33

Try forcing the in-game refreshrate, either through the nvidia control panel thing in the advanced bit of the display settings whatsit, or through dxdiag.

roadrunner_0 · 31 Dec 2004, 16:40

how do i do that though, remember, i know nowt about computers

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Dec 2004, 16:47

http://www.opentechsupport.net/forum...ic/8396-1.html

roadrunner_0 · 31 Dec 2004, 17:00

cheers, found out how to do it in steam support, still didnt work, it also suggested re installing direct X, which i am trying now

MrL_JaKiri · 31 Dec 2004, 17:23

Also, try another monitor. Reinstall graphics card drivers. Update Half Life 2.

pablissimo · 31 Dec 2004, 17:30

As a stopgap, try

Right-click steam icon, click Play Games
Right-click Half-Life 2, click Properties, click Launch Options, type -startwindowed in the box
Ok out of the properties window, double-click Half-Life 2 to start.

Androme · 31 Dec 2004, 18:45

What model is the nvidia cards? Updating to the newest drivers isn't always best - why? Because not every 'new' driver released is going to be the best choice for your card. Detonator 42.x should be ok.

BesigedB · 31 Dec 2004, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

What model is the nvidia cards? Updating to the newest drivers isn't always best - why? Because not every 'new' driver released is going to be the best choice for your card. Detonator 42.x should be ok.

Not really. One of the primary reasons drivers are updated is to deal with game-specific bugs and glitches.

42.x are old now, and won't even support new cards.

Androme · 31 Dec 2004, 23:55

Not really BesigedB - I'm still using Catalyst 3.8 for example because it performs better than 4.2 (I've tried it and performance went down signifcantly) - when I had a nVidia GeForce 2 MX 440 64mb long, long ago - the detonator 42 drivers never worked as well as the 29.32 one's I had installed - games all slowed down.

So you're wrong.

mist · 1 Jan 2005, 00:26

the later drivers are optimised to work on the latest cards so that they bencmark best - this doesn't mean they're optimised for older cards. hence androme be correct. ofc, there comes a point when games demand the latest version od direct x, which throws a fit about your new drivers. can't have everything i guess :/

BesigedB · 1 Jan 2005, 00:40

I would stick with that philosophy, only I couldn't run doom 3 with my old drivers.

Dead_Meat · 1 Jan 2005, 00:58

Do you have the proper driver for your monitor?

Androme · 1 Jan 2005, 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by BesigedB

I would stick with that philosophy, only I couldn't run doom 3 with my old drivers.

Yeah, it depends on the card, the game and the drivers - der...

Just admit you're wrong

MrL_JaKiri · 1 Jan 2005, 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

Not really BesigedB - I'm still using Catalyst 3.8 for example because it performs better than 4.2 (I've tried it and performance went down signifcantly)

Catalyst 4.6 (which is nearly a year old) has performed the best out of any driver set I've tried (except the Omega drivers, which I have to use because ATI don't officially support the 9xOO Mobility chipset). Using a 9800 Pro here, 9700 pro up until the summer.

Sunday8pm · 1 Jan 2005, 05:03

Don't worry! As long as you hit that wire with the connecting hook at precisely eighty-eight miles per hour the instant the lightning strikes the tower ... everything will be fine!

1 Jan 2005, 05:13

Looks like you're just going to have to reformat everything mate. Sorry.

Androme · 1 Jan 2005, 05:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Catalyst 4.6 (which is nearly a year old) has performed the best out of any driver set I've tried (except the Omega drivers, which I have to use because ATI don't officially support the 9xOO Mobility chipset). Using a 9800 Pro here, 9700 pro up until the summer.

You're missing the point - I'm talking about older boards work better with older drivers.

MrL_JaKiri · 1 Jan 2005, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

You're missing the point - I'm talking about older boards work better with older drivers.

Not necessarily; if memory serves, 4.2 was a shitty release.

Androme · 1 Jan 2005, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Not necessarily; if memory serves, 4.2 was a shitty release.

You're again missing the point. I said for example.

MrL_JaKiri · 1 Jan 2005, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

You're again missing the point. I said for example.

Yes, I gathered. Different driver sets have different performances on different cards.

However, you missed MY point. Your point was that older releases are sometimes better for older cards, and I pointed out that this may not necessarily be the case, because the 4.2 drivers were slower than things that came before or after, and thus is not a valid grounds for comparison as it will skew the results. 3.8 is faster than 4.2, but then so is 4.6; whether 3.8 is faster than 4.6 must be the new comparison in order to provide evidence for your conjecture.

Androme · 1 Jan 2005, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yes, I gathered. Different driver sets have different performances on different cards.

However, you missed MY point. Your point was that older releases are sometimes better for older cards, and I pointed out that this may not necessarily be the case, because the 4.2 drivers were slower than things that came before or after, and thus is not a valid grounds for comparison as it will skew the results. 3.8 is faster than 4.2, but then so is 4.6; whether 3.8 is faster than 4.6 must be the new comparison in order to provide evidence for your conjecture.

I constantly update the drivers to test performance and I've tried 4.6 but 3.8 delivered overall best performance - to double-check I've done benchmarks to make sure and they gave me the same result as what my eyes give me. So I didn't miss YOUR point - I thought you would be able to figure out I've tried other drivers by using the "for example" statement meaning there are more I've tried.

MrL_JaKiri · 1 Jan 2005, 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

I constantly update the drivers to test performance and I've tried 4.6 but 3.8 delivered overall best performance - to double-check I've done benchmarks to make sure and they gave me the same result as what my eyes give me. So I didn't miss YOUR point - I thought you would be able to figure out I've tried other drivers by using the "for example" statement meaning there are more I've tried.

The 'for example' didn't really mean anything; in the context, it appeared to mean 'here is an example to justify my point'; my point still stands, as I wasn't saying anything about the relative speeds of 3.8 and 4.6 (what card are you using?), but your ability to state that on the evidence given.