l@g said:O.K.... a little post.
1- I not reply your post or comments because I `don`t my own internet connection.
aprentice said:I'm sorry I have to stoop to this but your full of it. The real reason you cannot reply to it is because you dont know the answer these questions. Alot of things that you added were stolen from suprahle. I am not sure that even you know what you are doing.
toolkiks said:To all those who feel they need this question answered or that feature explained, how about just backing off and just leaving the guy alone. Why is it so important to prove your points about whether or not you think this is a valid emu anyway? Stop being so negative. Even if if these are stolen ideas, so what, is he charging you money for these releases? How about some constructive suggestions rather than such crizicism. And calling him sad? Who are you, or anyone else here to judge. Don't have anything positive or helpful to say, keep it to yourself.
Actually yes.If you pirate and dont charge for your stuff, does it make you legit? [/B]
toolkiks said:how about just backing off and just leaving the guy alone. Why is it so important to prove your points about whether or not you think this is a valid emu anyway?
toolkiks said:How about some constructive suggestions rather than such crizicism.
toolkiks said:Who are you, or anyone else here to judge. Don't have anything positive or helpful to say, keep it to yourself.
CpU MasteR said:Because we need to find out if he is accually using Microsoft C++ and putting some acual work into this... Or he is just using Resource hacker & making fancy (but fake) GUI changes...
oDD said:CpU MasteR said:Because we need to find out if he is accually using Microsoft C++ and putting some acual work into this... Or he is just using Resource hacker & making fancy (but fake) GUI changes...
This version of ultrahle is BS! Open up your favourite hex editor and do a binary compare between L@g's UltraHLE and the offical 1.0 UltraHLE and youll see that the compiled code is identical! There are only a few bytes changed every couple of blocks (using a resource hacker does this) then down the bottom youll notice that the only major changes are in the resource section.
Recompiling the leaked source code produces an exe nothing like the offical 1.0 version. There is no way that he is working on the leaked source code!
I think L@g's releases shouldnt be announced on emulation64.com or any other site for that matter or until he can prove to us that he knows what he is talking about and that he really is doing some work to improve UltraHLE.
:angry:
oDD said:CpU MasteR said:Because we need to find out if he is accually using Microsoft C++ and putting some acual work into this... Or he is just using Resource hacker & making fancy (but fake) GUI changes...
This version of ultrahle is BS! Open up your favourite hex editor and do a binary compare between L@g's UltraHLE and the offical 1.0 UltraHLE and youll see that the compiled code is identical! There are only a few bytes changed every couple of blocks (using a resource hacker does this) then down the bottom youll notice that the only major changes are in the resource section.
Recompiling the leaked source code produces an exe nothing like the offical 1.0 version. There is no way that he is working on the leaked source code!
I think L@g's releases shouldnt be announced on emulation64.com or any other site for that matter or until he can prove to us that he knows what he is talking about and that he really is doing some work to improve UltraHLE.
:angry:
CpU MasteR said:Now, People have some flamming to do :innocent: