23 minutes ago, fastcall22 said:

It simply does not work like that way any more.  There is no electron gun with which to stream color data.  We have since transitioned from streaming color data with an electron gun to streaming digital image data.

CRTs are obsolete.  With HDMI and the advent of DisplayPort, monitors are no longer constrained to the physical limitations of an electron gun and its exact analog timings.  Images are now compressed and uploaded to multiple monitors at irregular intervals.  The monitor itself may even subdivide the image and update sections of itself in parallel.  This is how we can achieve outrageous 4k resolutions at 60 fps, or 1440p resolutions at 144 fps.  Resolutions and framerates that would otherwise be physically impossible or infeasible using traditional timed analog (VGA) or digital (DVI) signals.

https://www.electronicdesign.com/communications/what-s-difference-between-hdmi-and-displayport

"Video is transferred as 24-bit pixels in synchronization with a separate clock channel. Ten bits are transferred per pixel clock period. The standard supports up to 48 bits of pixel data. Pixel clock rates can be any value within the 25-MHz to 340-MHz range. This allows 720p and 1080p resolution video with a 60-Hz refresh rate to be accommodated. The overall maximum possible composite data rate is 10.46 Gbits/s."

Sounds pretty close to what I said above

looks like it's sending the pixel color only then 10 pixels afterwords

what the f happened to my text there

8 hours ago, tolazytbh said:

.... I had watched a couple videos about making your own graphics card and the protocol is there's a horizontal scanline and a vertical scan line and you have to delay a couple of things before you write ...

There is the problem. I don't know what videos you have watched but it seems to have taken you on the wrong track. A common effect these days, people watch a video and feel like they could actually accomplish the things they saw in there. They are mistaken. It takes experience and handcraft to actually do complicated things. I observe that very frequently, not just in programming.

The hdmi monitor broke. The new one has wifi. What now ?

-------

People here actually write graphics programs that work, some of them (not me, i am just a hobbyist) since the early days of all this. Three of these say independently "render a quad", so it might be wise to render a quad.

Now, if you have given us all necessary information about your project, just render that quad, preferably with two triangles out of a vertex shader.

-------

Two cool videos by Christophe Riccio i found, showing shader execution on a quad, using two different graphics cards. Just for entertainment ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFx6StqpRdY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnUS8kzA3dI&feature=related

So, there has been a long-running debate in the gamedev world about making games vs making engines. I think that adding "making GPU drivers" might be taking it a little too far. You are certainly wasting your time with this if the goal is to make games.

On 8/29/2019 at 8:23 AM, JTippetts said:

So, there has been a long-running debate in the gamedev world about making games vs making engines. I think that adding "making GPU drivers" might be taking it a little too far. You are certainly wasting your time with this if the goal is to make games.

I seriously thought it was bullshit that 2-3 colors at the correct darkness (equal) apart does a line and you can't do It direct

And then using triangles half's your resolution in the end

^ I have a bunch of stuff from several screens on my own electronics or previous monitors with DPI and I just wanted to be direct with what i'm putting on the screen