R4Zi3L
Full Member
I-wanna-be-a-pirate!
Posts: 198
|
Post by R4Zi3L on Sept 25, 2006 3:40:08 GMT -5
Yupi! Let's get back to work
|
|
|
Post by laynlow on Sept 25, 2006 7:38:01 GMT -5
thanks for the new release
|
|
richi
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by richi on Sept 25, 2006 8:03:00 GMT -5
thanks! ;D , now i test my games1
|
|
|
Post by drwhojoe on Sept 25, 2006 10:37:06 GMT -5
Lets see if the XA sound is fixed for the music in games like ridge racer one, give it a try later!!. Nope i gave it a try and it did not work , mabe next time , any way keep up the good work!!. Drwhojan,
|
|
|
Post by Truth Unknown on Sept 26, 2006 13:10:18 GMT -5
We could go by Hex for the next version number. 1.A
|
|
|
Post by Melanogaster on Sept 26, 2006 13:17:51 GMT -5
Hmm... Alright, I think v1.10 is acceptable, then...
|
|
|
Post by elseno on Sept 26, 2006 13:32:30 GMT -5
again awesome release. thanks for your great work!! No problem with the numbering of pSX @ 1.10 (no reason to jump to 2.0 yet imo)
|
|
MotM
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by MotM on Sept 26, 2006 18:24:35 GMT -5
I had a feeling there was something new up... Haven't checked the board for a while... Good stuff, author!
|
|
styx
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by styx on Sept 27, 2006 15:09:55 GMT -5
Any chance we might see some better final fantasy support soon? I'm stuck at Kuja in FF IX :< Whenever he uses the Thundaga spell it freezes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2006 15:43:04 GMT -5
Hooray for a new release.
|
|
pothb
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by pothb on Sept 27, 2006 17:47:33 GMT -5
I always thought a v2.0 would be a working ps2 emulator rather than just psx. I'd go 1.10 or 1.9.1 and so on. The other would be going into hexidecimals, but thats dumb imo.
EDIT: The reason I think 2 would be into ps2 is because this is a potential ps2 emulator, correct?
|
|
|
Post by patrickp on Sept 27, 2006 17:57:10 GMT -5
Not in the forseeable future, pothb. It may happen, but it's a long way off. ATM it will sometimes run a PS2 BIOS partially and that's it.
I'd agree that pSX isn't ready for v2.0 yet, though. I'd be inclined to go with the 1.10 increment; otherwise pSX is going to be stuck with further increments of 1.9 until it does go to 2.0. The hex numbering increments might be logical, but will only confuse people who aren't familiar with hex.
|
|
|
Post by covarr on Sept 28, 2006 18:42:04 GMT -5
In math, 1.91 is greater than 1.9, but 1.10 is less, and is equal to 1.1. If the next release is labelled 1.10, a lot of people will get confused. If you decide that it's not worthy of a 2.0, you'd be best off calling it 1.9.1 so that people don't get confused.
In my experience, the only time a 0 at the end doesn't drop is after an "r" (revision). Like, 1.9r10 wouldn't drop it, but 1.10 would drop it to become 1.1.
|
|
|
Post by Sune on Sept 28, 2006 20:16:28 GMT -5
I think pSX author should call the next version Edmilson or Adailton. Those are some of my favourite Brasilian names. -Sune
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Sept 28, 2006 20:19:26 GMT -5
covarr: It's been said already, a version number isn't a normal number, so it shouldn't need to follow the conventions of a normal number. pSX 1.1 was clearly labeled as 1.1, and after having reached 1.9, I'm not sure how going to 1.10 would be all that confusing.
|
|