|
Post by Ultima on Nov 4, 2006 16:23:58 GMT -5
|
|
fbx
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by fbx on Nov 4, 2006 23:02:40 GMT -5
Hate to intentionally break a rule if its considered as such, but I think more important than an NTSC filter would be an adjustable scanlines option. This would more accurately reproduce how the graphics look on a TV set, and I use them exclusively on all other emulation platforms for this effect. I'm not into all those "hq4x" and "supersai" modes, as well as bilinear filtering. They just muddle the graphics and cost cpu time. Scanlines on the otherhand are a viable and cpu-friendly feature.
|
|
|
Post by zorro56 on Nov 5, 2006 5:51:28 GMT -5
I think it is very important to add the multitap support.
|
|
|
Post by totoff28 on Nov 5, 2006 8:10:01 GMT -5
I think it is very important to accurate Sound & CDrom Sound ! thanks.. Accrue Compatibility.. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Nov 5, 2006 9:16:40 GMT -5
totoff28, I'm prepared to give you a warning. Improved compatibility is already listed in that thread I linked to above. You're clearly not reading any of the important threads. Now, I suggest you reread (if you even did read) all the stickies and important threads.
|
|
|
Post by heeroyuibr on Nov 6, 2006 13:35:54 GMT -5
I have a suggestion. In the next version, put a shortkey to exchange between Normal Pad and DualShock Pad. Because some games only work with Normal Pad. It would be much more faster just press a button and "voyla", it's already in normal pad, done to play. Like in ePSXe, it's just press F5, make some like this.
For example, for take as ideia, in the SSSPSX PAD 1.7, there is the button "Analog" in his config that turn on the analog device of game pad. Maybe you could make some like this.
I don't know if i brake some rule, but a don't find none suggestion like this. And sorry for my english ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Nov 6, 2006 14:04:30 GMT -5
If you actually bothered reading the first post, you'd know that it's been over-requested.
|
|
|
Post by ripper713 on Nov 6, 2006 20:04:00 GMT -5
I have a debugger feature request. It would be helpful if the debugger had a new window for logging IO (and memory) reads and writes. Presently, you need to set breakpoints on all of the addresses of interest and log the operation by hand. The new window would work with the memory access type breakpoints and simply add a line with all of the relevant information for each time the breakpoint is activated. Ideally, this could toggle between two modes, breaking and non-breaking. This basically means in the breaking mode, the CPU breaks on the access and the access is logged. In the non-breaking mode, the access is logged but the CPU does not break.
|
|
|
Post by pSX Author on Nov 6, 2006 20:16:04 GMT -5
I have a debugger feature request. It would be helpful if the debugger had a new window for logging IO (and memory) reads and writes. Presently, you need to set breakpoints on all of the addresses of interest and log the operation by hand. The new window would work with the memory access type breakpoints and simply add a line with all of the relevant information for each time the breakpoint is activated. Ideally, this could toggle between two modes, breaking and non-breaking. This basically means in the breaking mode, the CPU breaks on the access and the access is logged. In the non-breaking mode, the access is logged but the CPU does not break. You can kind of do this already... in the breakpoint condition do something like: print(pc),0 this will cause it to print the program counter (on the console) and then return 0 for the condition which will cause it not to stop.
|
|
|
Post by Gamesoul Master on Nov 6, 2006 20:22:53 GMT -5
Ultima: I'm starting to realize that by implementing this warning system of yours, you're actually being *less* strict. Because... you're so reluctant to give out even one warning, that anybody breaking rules would have to somehow force you to give them a bunch of warnings, and then they'd have to push even harder for you to follow up on actually banning them. Let's try something here... if someone says something that makes you think of the *possibility* of giving them a warning... you need to give them a warning. Please don't take offense by this, but empty threats are the worst and most ineffective kind of threats.
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Nov 6, 2006 20:47:36 GMT -5
The difference is that I'm actually marking down which users have been given their pre-warnings (I'm placing them in the account notes), and if they continue to break the rules AFTER they read my pre-warning, then I take action. How do I measure when they actually read my pre-warning? It starts with their next post after my post to them. So far, totoff28 has yet to break the rules again, so I haven't given the warning yet. It wouldn't be fair for me to warn him before he actually reads the pre-warning, and would serve no purpose otherwise. The pre-warning isn't an empty threat -- it's what it is, a pre-warning. If, after they are that much wiser, the user decides to break the rules again, I can clearly say it's fair game for my awarding them with a shiny warning level increase. Why haven't I given any warnings out yet? Because I've yet to notice any rules being broken after my pre-warning. Edit: In fact, I'm going to modify the rules a bit. 5% warning is going to be considered the "pre-warning" now. It's becoming an annoyance to have to check account profiles to see if I gave a pre-warning already (which I've been doing so far). A 5% warning level is immediately noticable to me. Thanks for having me ponder over this though
|
|
|
Post by Gamesoul Master on Nov 6, 2006 21:04:38 GMT -5
But here's the thing... what's the point of a pre-warning? By what you set, there is no single warning that can ban a person... not even two of any kind of warning. So... getting one or two warnings still has no effect on a person or their account. If a person breaks the rules once and gets one warning, then they have been warned, and as long as they don't break too many more rules, no adverse effect will occur. You see what I mean? There is no difference between a warning and a pre-warning, except that a pre-warning will be taken less seriously. So far, things have been good. But how long will that last? I say... since it takes multiple warnings for any action to be taken, just give the warnings. And as you observed, nobody has gone past the pre-warning. So if they got one warning instead of the pre-warning, things would still be the same, but you wouldn't be dealing with all these different things when just having warnings is more than enough. Edit: Anyway... if you end up wanting to respond to this message, it'd probably be better to do so in a PM or a thread in the Chat forum, as it's probably not a good idea to hijack this thread as we are starting to do...
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Nov 6, 2006 21:06:32 GMT -5
Notice my edit A breaking of any of the zero-tolerance rules WILL bring a 1 week ban immediately after the pre-warning. I'm going a bit easier on the general rules because they just happen sometimes (minor flames when discussions get heated).
|
|
|
Post by Gamesoul Master on Nov 6, 2006 21:08:39 GMT -5
That works. That way, the low value still acts well as a first-warning, but it's still there to mean something solid. Thanks for hearing me out.
Edit: Yeah, almost like me and that guy in the other thread, about the reset/eject/insert issue... But I calmed myself down on it. I didn't want it to escalate... lol.
|
|
|
Post by Sune on Nov 6, 2006 21:20:57 GMT -5
May I suggest a 'forum suggestions' board?
There's a lot of threads around with discussions that would fit better on a board like that.
Or maybe a slight renaming of the chat board?
|
|