Static Recompiler option
- Thread starter Poobah
- Start date
ScottJC
At your service, dood!
For an on-board card? I don't think so federelli... Hacks wrapper uses specific radeon/geforce things to my knowledge (or at least a thing an on-board card doesn't do), I think anyone with an on board card would find it to be very displeasing...
Proof: (first post on this page)
http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=20087&page=4&pp=15
"To use this wrapper you need a video card with at least 2 texture units and that support at least the texture_env_combine extension. The first nvidia card that support it is the TNT which is very old now. So no it's not only for high end but i have no idea if a SiS card support it."
If on board cards have that then yeah... go for it but if not then evoodoo.
Proof: (first post on this page)
http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=20087&page=4&pp=15
"To use this wrapper you need a video card with at least 2 texture units and that support at least the texture_env_combine extension. The first nvidia card that support it is the TNT which is very old now. So no it's not only for high end but i have no idea if a SiS card support it."
If on board cards have that then yeah... go for it but if not then evoodoo.
Last edited:
Most authors do not (or did not) have high-end hardware. I believe Rice began coding his plugin on a GF2 MX. A TNT 2 for Jabo as I recall. It was only recently that Rice bought a new card (a Radeon 9700 or something) and as a result, many games that weren't emulated so well are now looking much better. There's only so much that can be done with older systems. Low-end hardware simply doesn't offer what's needed to make the games look their best.tomman said:
tomman
New member
Allnatural said:
Do not offer??? If that is true, why the heck Corn runs fast here? Sure, there are some textures missing, and no antialiasing, but this should be no problem for fix it. And i don't care if there are some tiny details missing if i can play the game at a decent speed.
Just think that UltraHLE was born on the PII era (PIII was introduced the same day: 28/1/99, am i true?). Sure, it needed a Voodoo, but it ran FAST. And a SiS 630 is more like a older Voodoo (maybe a 1?, not sure, since i have never tested a voodoo, but my mobo was manufactured in early 2001).
"Use Jabo plugins". Its the same thing, a bit faster, but not fast, and buggy.
For example, i get a weird effect: image appears cropped to down, and stretched to fill the space. I will put a screenshot later for describe that, but this is another issue not very relevant now.
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
That's why I suggest an option to have a static recompiler to turn on for only some games. That means there would be an option to toggle the static recompiler on or off. (for most games, it will be set to off)
aprentice
Moderator
tomman said:
It is a trade off, low compat and glitchy gfx in turn for low specs pc's. If you want this, continue using ultrahle
And for your info, corn ended not because the beta was leaked, but because static recompilation couldnt be pushed any furthur, corn was one big hack. Contra took the opportunity of the beta leak to end corn. As gfx emulation got more complete, corn got slower, so that just goes to show you.
Yes, and I hope Valve retools HL2 for my mother's old 386. She's been dying to play it. Come on guys, think of the little people!tomman said:
OP
Poobah
New member
- Thread Starter
- #30
I just think I should mention that I'm not stupid enough to think that a Static Recompiler solves all speed problems. I KNOW about the difference between plugin-based emulators and all-in-one emulators.
I just suggested static recompiler because it seems like it would be a lot faster than dynamic.
I just suggested static recompiler because it seems like it would be a lot faster than dynamic.
ScottJC
At your service, dood!
While that may make 1964 use slightly less CPU than it does now, it will only serve to make it 80% less compatible than it is now, the idea is novel but not practical now considering the amount of 1-3ghz processors around now-adays here.
They strongly need to work on other improvements than this, because it is not 1964's core thats the speed problem, why 1964's core is flippin fast.. amazingly fast.. uses probably 20% of my cpu before plugins come in. 1964 is designed for slow computers so don't say it needs more speed. it needs faster plugins for you...
Seriously we don't need it nor do the slower users, 1964's core is fast enough already..
They strongly need to work on other improvements than this, because it is not 1964's core thats the speed problem, why 1964's core is flippin fast.. amazingly fast.. uses probably 20% of my cpu before plugins come in. 1964 is designed for slow computers so don't say it needs more speed. it needs faster plugins for you...
Seriously we don't need it nor do the slower users, 1964's core is fast enough already..
tomman
New member
SLOWbro
Exactly! Core is not the main problem, although it can be 1-2% faster, but the problem here are THE VIDEO PLUGINS! Not sound, not input, maybe RSP, but the video plugins are the big "bottle-neck" here.
Why we need antialiasing, ansiotropic filtering, filtering, and such things? Image quality? Hey, i love the videogames because it are fun, the image and sound are in a second or third place. Pong is fun, and it can run even on a calculator!, so why not do that effort with N64 emulators too?
Let's forget about Murphy laws now, and remember our roots. Most users started with a crappy SLOW PC, and most users still keep it (and a litte portion still USES it).
Or give me 2000$ for buy a new PC
PS: How i can know how many texturing units have my SiS 630?
Exactly! Core is not the main problem, although it can be 1-2% faster, but the problem here are THE VIDEO PLUGINS! Not sound, not input, maybe RSP, but the video plugins are the big "bottle-neck" here.
Why we need antialiasing, ansiotropic filtering, filtering, and such things? Image quality? Hey, i love the videogames because it are fun, the image and sound are in a second or third place. Pong is fun, and it can run even on a calculator!, so why not do that effort with N64 emulators too?
Let's forget about Murphy laws now, and remember our roots. Most users started with a crappy SLOW PC, and most users still keep it (and a litte portion still USES it).
Or give me 2000$ for buy a new PC
PS: How i can know how many texturing units have my SiS 630?
Last edited:
OP
Poobah
New member
- Thread Starter
- #33
1964's core isn't as fast as Project64's. And having 1-3ghz processors doesn't magically make all 64 games run at a perfect pace. Rare's games, in particular, have about 40% CPU time used in the core on my computer.
Anyway, it's bad programming practice to just design games for the most expensive of computers. Shouldn't people be trying to make their stuff run as fast as possible? That's what they did years ago.
Anyway, it's bad programming practice to just design games for the most expensive of computers. Shouldn't people be trying to make their stuff run as fast as possible? That's what they did years ago.
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
PsyMan said:
Actually, Goldeneye 007 will never run at completely full speed unless you have at least a around 2.2 ghz with an Athlon or around 3.2 ghz with a Pentium 4
PsyMan
Just Another Wacko ;)
I could run Goldeneye fullspeed on my Athlon Thunderbird @ 850Mhz using 1964 v0.9.9 and the default CF value (2x1) and with my new CPU it runs fullspeed even when the CF is at 1x1 or 1x0.5. When using PJ64 the game was very slow on the 850Mhz CPU and even has some slowdowns with my new CPU.
Trotterwatch
New member
RJARRRPCGP said:
I'm getting sick to death of hearing you spouting this drivel.....
P4 2ghz, Goldeneye fullspeed.
tomman
New member
Again, should i remember that 1964/PJ64/ur_emu_that_uses_plugins is not the problem?
Now i have a couple of tech questions:
1) What are exactly interpreter, static and dynamic recompiler? What is faster and what is more compatible/stable/CPU-friendly?
2) How i can determine how many texturing units have a video card? Is there any utility that give extended info about videocards?
Now i have a couple of tech questions:
1) What are exactly interpreter, static and dynamic recompiler? What is faster and what is more compatible/stable/CPU-friendly?
2) How i can determine how many texturing units have a video card? Is there any utility that give extended info about videocards?
Last edited:
RJARRRPCGP
The Rocking PC Wiz
Trotterwatch said:
What I mean by not full speed is it can run fast for a majority, but the FPS (real FPS) will drop to the single digits or tens when there are a lot of guards. I only stopped seeing those slowdowns for the majority only after I upgraded my processor. At 900 mhz, for me, still a lot of slowdowns. At 1.6 ghz, better, but still not as good as 2.2 ghz and that's with an Athlon. A Pentium 4 at the minimum probably at around 2.66 ghz, unless the video card you have is able to take the work load off of the processor.
The Radeon 8500 appears to be a good video card of it's time. Same with the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 64 MB version. (The manufacturers decided to make the 128 MB version of the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 have lower clock speed RAM)
Unless you have at least the specs I mentioned, it's not unusual to get speed dips of down to the single digits or tens.
Sorry about the confusion.
Last edited: