An inacuracy in (AFAIK) all gfx plugins

The screen border...

On a real TV, the black border is "displayed" outside the TV screen
<img src="http://www.emutalk.net/attachment.php?s=&postid=142610">

and in Zelda, on the TV screen, the distance between the border of the screen and both big buttons (A and B) is about 1.5 times the distance between these buttons. The space is too big here.
<img src="http://www.emutalk.net/attachment.php?s=&postid=142611">

Since no one has ever implememented this, I assume that there is(are) some good reason(s) for it.

Are there games that don't have these theorically hidden borders? Or worse, games that sometimes use it and somtims don't? If yes, is it hard to determine wether it should hide the borders or not?

Would some kind of "zoom in" be difficult to implement.

Clements said:

You can just adjust your monitor to get rid of the borders.

Click to expand...

Sure, or put some tape on my screen borders... Ok, I scramm .

This doesn't tell me why plugin authors chose not to simulate the overscan (thanks Tag' ). When plugged it's plugged to a VGA box, does the overscan still happen?




I've made a search for black borders and overscan, there are a few posts, but nothing I'd qualify "long threads about this", or, at least, nothing with detailled pros and cons. Did these discussions occur before emutalk switched to vBulletin, or maybe elsewhere?

Thanks for your answer, Slougi.

Now that I think of it, to reproduce the same behaviour (because asking the user to stretch the picture with the monitor control is not really an comfortable sotution, although it doensn't matter much, eh), you'd have to create a frame buffer that's wider than what's displayed. AFAIK, it isn't possible for a coder to do that with the current PC hardware (although IIRC, videocards sometimes do that internally, for example, in 640*480 mode, the frame buffer of nVidia cards is 1024 pixels wide, because it fits the memory better, giving faster results. Only the 640 first pixels of each lines are displayed).