cycle-accuracy vs feature rich - lets duke it out

i really don't care

my vote feature rich, actually I can just choose

cycle-accuracy is most likely only need if something does not work as expected, if we want a game to run and it needed this, then this might be something worth doing. On the other hand if we could simulate it then why would we need it. Some things like cache and cycle steps are done to make the hardware faster, and they try to be transparent to the software. Unless there is a bug that needs to be emulated, or you want to mirror the real hardware to test things better for it, then it is a lot of work for no benifit

I believe every attempt should be made to not only provide the most accurate emulation experience, but to make the thing as simple and easy to use as possbible.

I don't care about cheats and using a game system online that wasn't designed to be in the first place.

I want games that aren't buggy and act exactly like the real ones. Maybe I'm asking for the Moon, but the thing works great now, and I think it can only get better by increasing it's accuracy.

Computers will get faster and so the need for squeazing every ounce out of today's PC/Macs will only be a trivial or non-existant issue in future versions and hardware. I don't think Nintendo should profit off of games they sold a decade ago, so in the meantime, let's enjoy those games for all they are worth... not to have a "simulated" and inferior experience.

*puts $.02 down*

I can only think of 2 reasons of acurrate emulation:
Star Wars: Rogue Squadron and Star Wars: Battle for Naboo

In theory, cycle accurate emulation is a good idea, and that the current crop should be good. in practice, cycle accurate is too slow, and the current crop is able to emulate a good percentage of games using techniques that are above what the N64 could have originally done.

If you want perfect emulation, does that mean limiting it to 320*240, with only a few games at 640*480, do you want video noise to be added, like it was on a real N64 played through a capture card?

skyman8081 said:

I can only think of 2 reasons of acurrate emulation:
Star Wars: Rogue Squadron and Star Wars: Battle for Naboo

In theory, cycle accurate emulation is a good idea, and that the current crop should be good. in practice, cycle accurate is too slow, and the current crop is able to emulate a good percentage of games using techniques that are above what the N64 could have originally done.

If you want perfect emulation, does that mean limiting it to 320*240, with only a few games at 640*480, do you want video noise to be added, like it was on a real N64 played through a capture card?

Click to expand...

The emulation is not too slow.. the hardware is. As computers get faster, the "too slow" argument will fade.

I can't imagine why anybody would want innacurate emulation.

you add some things in so the game appears accurate, but what do you count as accurate, to be able to produce the exact same number of cache misses, so stats are the same !!!! do you want to compensate and possible make things run better then they did on the console, or just like the console if you really want accuracy you would not want instant save as well ???

zilmar said:

you add some things in so the game appears accurate, but what do you count as accurate, to be able to produce the exact same number of cache misses, so stats are the same !!!! do you want to compensate and possible make things run better then they did on the console, or just like the console if you really want accuracy you would not want instant save as well ???

Click to expand...

Save-state, hi score saving and other such inherent issues are always a problem, when interfaces differ or aren't physically/dynamically possible. Yes, you must fudge here and there to make the thing playable and yes you have to compromise something to get something else.

I just think things like online gaming is a waste of time, for something not designed for it originally, especially since these games are not programmed with that in mind, so hacking game code, etc is the only way to make online fully functional. But if a million people want it and five don't.. whaddayagonnado?

And I don't see things running "better" than they did on the console, when there are so many bugs in the existing drivers, making games either play bad, or look bad compared to the original hardware. Some games are near perfect. My point is, fix what's broken. Make the stuff work that does not and TRY to make the thing as accurately operating as the original, BEFORE adding a bunch of stuff that wasn't in the actual unit. And again, computers will keep getting faster and faster, so a slower emulator will not be so slow in a few years, which may be how long we'll have to wait for cycle-accuracy accross the board. You guys act like it's some kind of "cancer cure" like it doesn't exist, but then proclaim that cancer is a "good thing".

Again, I'm pretty happy with PJ64 overall. I just would like a more accurate experience, since half the games I play on it, do not perform as well or have graphic/sound bugs prevolent, that were not in the original game. It's bothersome to me and judging by the posts here about bugs, I'm not alone. More accurate emulation and maybe even some better ROM dumps will fix those issues.

I can't imagine it being a waste of time.

Ballard said:

Computers will get faster and so the need for squeazing every ounce out of today's PC/Macs will only be a trivial or non-existant issue in future versions and hardware. I don't think Nintendo should profit off of games they sold a decade ago, so in the meantime, let's enjoy those games for all they are worth... not to have a "simulated" and inferior experience.

*puts $.02 down*

Click to expand...

I think the argument "computers will get faster" is a lame excuse. If you really wanted, there are tons of optimizations you can do. And if you understand the hardware good enough you can do things amazingly fast.
And why shouldn't nintendo profit from old games? They are GAMES, and have been created and developed. Getting a game without paying for it is stealing - and although we might download roms, they aren't produced anymore and are hard to get a hold of.

Doomulation said:

I think the argument "computers will get faster" is a lame excuse. If you really wanted, there are tons of optimizations you can do. And if you understand the hardware good enough you can do things amazingly fast.
And why shouldn't nintendo profit from old games? They are GAMES, and have been created and developed. Getting a game without paying for it is stealing - and although we might download roms, they aren't produced anymore and are hard to get a hold of.

Click to expand...

To you first point: How is assuming faster computers will make cycle-accurate emulation faster an excuse? An excuse for what.. doing something correctly, instead of hacking it to work? WTF are you doing advocating mediocrity? Maybe the guys who make the emulators WANT to make it more accurate, but know that currently it would be unplayable. Faster PCs will free them of the headaches of fanboys bitching about slowness and their P3s overheating, if they do choose a more accurate method of documenting the behavior of said hardware.

And to the second "point"... first you defend Nintendo being able to profit from old games and say that downloading is stealing, but then you point out that they aren't produced anymore, implying that it's a harmless venture to d/l games that haven't made a penny in over a decade. What's your point here?

First point: if they WANTED, they could make a program work with current hardware - there is no need for it get faster. That's an excuse for poor programming.
Second point: Downloading is stealing, but you basically do not steal when these are games that are no longer produced. HOWEVER, when they are yet again available for the revolution, is it then, not fair for nintendo to charge a fee since the games are actually games?

I am not against things getting better and getting rid of bugs where it makes it behave worse the originaly, but if cycle accuracte emulation does not do this, might be more accurate then why bother. I mean to get cycle accurate it probaly will not slow down the emulationas there is ways to speed things up, it is developlement time that I care about. If it gets rid of bugs then I am for it, if it is just to be acurate for the sake of it, then it is a waste of time that could be put to something more useful

I might also add that I am zilmar's side of this feature - I would rather see more features and richer experience in other fields. Games already work fine.

Doomulation said:

First point: if they WANTED, they could make a program work with current hardware - there is no need for it get faster. That's an excuse for poor programming.
Second point: Downloading is stealing, but you basically do not steal when these are games that are no longer produced. HOWEVER, when they are yet again available for the revolution, is it then, not fair for nintendo to charge a fee since the games are actually games?

Click to expand...

Read byuu's points on cycle-accuracy: If you'd like to consider him a poor programmer, I suppose that's your prerogative... http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/?page=bsnes

The optimizations you speak of are "speed hacks". Those go against the philosophy of accurate emulation.

I sort of agree with your second point ideally, but this has been discussed a jillion times both in forums and in courtrooms and despite the fact that said software is no longer produced by it's manufacturer, it's copyrights are good for 75 years. The rub is, very few of those copyright holders give a toss about suing freeware devs and romsites, since nobody is making a profit, if the basic rules are applied. Obviously, if copyright infringment was hurting the gaming industry from emulators/roms, don't you think all these emulators would be gone by now? But this topic is massively irrelevant to this thread.

zilmar said:

I am not against things getting better and getting rid of bugs where it makes it behave worse the originaly, but if cycle accuracte emulation does not do this, might be more accurate then why bother. I mean to get cycle accurate it probaly will not slow down the emulationas there is ways to speed things up, it is developlement time that I care about. If it gets rid of bugs then I am for it, if it is just to be acurate for the sake of it, then it is a waste of time that could be put to something more useful

Click to expand...

From the games I actually own and have played on the hardware, many of the emulated versions of those same games have bugs that weren't present, or the romdumps have bad checksums and verious other issues. If bugs were present in the original game/hardware, that's one thing, but if graphic textures, effects, framerate, sound sync and other things aren't as good, then YES there is a point in doing that.

And rule of thumb is: Accurate = slow. If you are hacking code to speed up the opcode functions, then it's not operating accurately. But, if you can compromise, that's even better.

I think there is some miss understanding here, Ballard if I am correct you do not care that much how the program works if given the same input then the output is the same. You assume to achieve this then you need to follow byuu's points on cycle-accuracy and this is the reason why things are not perfect now?

zilmar said:

I think there is some miss understanding here, Ballard if I am correct you do not care that much how the program works if given the same input then the output is the same. You assume to achieve this then you need to follow byuu's points on cycle-accuracy and this is the reason why things are not perfect now?

Click to expand...

I just want the emulator to act as close to the original hardware as possible... if that's possible and IF the programmers and users want that.

If they want a speed-hacked, bug-ridden emulator that does not play exactly like the hardware, but can grate cheese for you, chop garlic, give you a backrub and change your car's oil as well as play online... that's what the majority will get.

Ballad, I want it to produce the same results as the real system. But there is many areas to improve, cycle accuracy could be one, and I guess my point is more been that it is a lot of work for something that will not likely give any effect. It would work the same as the hardware works but does that really matter, there is many different x86 cpus and they all work differently but produce the same results, I can not see the need to simulate the cpu to the exact same level. I see the need of making things work as close to the real hardware, just adding features is not useful if it the underling games do not work well enougth to be used.

That sounds good to me!

I like you Ballard dude, you never chooses your words and get away with them all the time...
First, on the other thread, you called the entire emulation comunity freeloaders.
Now you called all non cycle accurate emulators mediocre.

Now, to the matter at hand, not even Nintendo itself emulates cycle accurate, they translated both N64 and SNes to a single chip each to work on revo, so why should we bother.
And more on this why should we, able to play n64 emulated right now, were to be put on hold for a few more years for the emulators to be cycle accurate?
You´re trying to fix what is not broken, i mean, it is not mandatory to have all the games of an emulated platform to work, we ain´t buying emulators so we get to bitch about something that is not working.
Those guys do the best of themselves to emulate game systems, for the heck of it and to play ROM dumps, they are not professionals being paid to do that nor they have responsability to make the programs emulate those game systems to the fullest extent.

In short you, buddy, should be more thankful to the "mediocrity" that you got, because just like all of us "freeloaders", you too get to play your illegal rom dumps, most of them perfectly or on higher resolutions and being able to save anywhere you want, for free.