|
Post by madprofessor on Jun 1, 2006 18:41:34 GMT -5
if we are actually wishing for stuff i'd wish to see the version 2.6 of this emu some day ;D that would be 99,99999% of psx accurate emulation with kickass easy and shiny gui ;D ;D oh oh and maybe a source release after that again congrats to the author
|
|
Timerever
New Member
Offtopic == Teh good!
Posts: 10
|
Post by Timerever on Jun 2, 2006 4:05:47 GMT -5
Actually on my system sometimes Chrono Cross would run at 120 fps on pSX It's obvious that your computer is faster than mine but the point here is that ePSXe is faster for me I just don't kow if it is the CPU fault or GPU fault. My guess is that pSX runs slower because it uses manages DirectX9 calls, VisualBoyAdvance also runs fine on my machine but VBA-S that uses managed DirectX9 is dog slow. So my request would be usage of OpenGL to draw the screen (or whatever makes pSX faster) 1. If and When the PS2 emulation part of pSX emulator is done, the PS2 part could be used to enhance the graphics of a PS1 game exactly like on the real hardware. PS2 part? You mean Playstation 2? Will this emulator do PS2 aswell? 2. pSX could start using the NTSC (and in the future PAL) TV filters to add the real TV look to the outputted graphics All of these artifacts were unwanted side effects that if it was technologically viable to avoid they would've been. Like someone said at the Kega forum, adding these artifacts to the image isn't emulation it's mimicking. xinput?? you mean for an Xbox 360 controller??? I use one just fine, just need the right driver, even rumbles..... Belive me XBCD isn't has good as XInput
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Jun 2, 2006 15:40:12 GMT -5
GPU can't be at fault, as everything is software-rendered. And yes, there's a rudimentary Playstation 2 emulator in pSX, but it doesn't do much, and is slow.
|
|
Timerever
New Member
Offtopic == Teh good!
Posts: 10
|
Post by Timerever on Jun 2, 2006 17:56:30 GMT -5
GPU can't be at fault, as everything is software-rendered. And yes, there's a rudimentary Playstation 2 emulator in pSX, but it doesn't do much, and is slow. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what software render means then... can you explain it to me? A good example in this case can be a comparation between ePSXe with Pete plugins and pSX. If it ain't too much trouble I would likee to be enlighten in this matter. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by ayreonknight on Jun 2, 2006 20:43:28 GMT -5
first off i think that this a great emu. Great job to all. I use both this and ePSXe an i am using this more.
I do have one suggestion for the fast forward button i would it to be able to be a different button or if someone has an adapter for a psx controller (i do) it would be nice to have that key be able to be used on the controller.
Great work pSx Author ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Jun 2, 2006 21:37:56 GMT -5
@Timerever: When I say software rendering, I mean all the handling of textures, polygons, sounds, and whatnot are handled by pSX itself, not the sound card, not the graphics card. The only thing they're used for is to output the stuff, not do any special operations on them. It is because of this that there can't be hardware acceleration of graphics and sound, but it is also because of this that the emulation speed is not limited by low-end graphics or sound solutions.
@ayreonknight: You can change the fast forward button. It's in Configuration > Misc.
-------------------------
Edit: Hm, I just thought of something looking at the Configuration... it's not XP themed, meaning it doesn't have a manifest included. For the time being, anyone who wants pSX to be XP themed (lol only for configuration, but who cares xD) can copy the following into a file called psxfin.exe.manifest (or name_of_executable.exe.manifest if you renamed your psxfin.exe):<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0"> <assemblyIdentity version="1.0.0.0" processorArchitecture="X86" name="pSX.Emulator" type="win32" /> <description>pSX Emulator</description> <dependency> <dependentAssembly> <assemblyIdentity type="win32" name="Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls" version="6.0.0.0" processorArchitecture="X86" publicKeyToken="6595b64144ccf1df" language="*" /> </dependentAssembly> </dependency> </assembly>
I guess you can say this is a request from me to have a manifest included in pSX. Though not very essential (should probably be at the bottom of any list of Todo's), it adds a little bit of "polish" to pSX's interface, and probably isn't all that hard to add.
|
|
Timerever
New Member
Offtopic == Teh good!
Posts: 10
|
Post by Timerever on Jun 3, 2006 3:58:58 GMT -5
@ Timerever: When I say software rendering, I mean all the handling of textures, polygons, sounds, and whatnot are handled by pSX itself, not the sound card, not the graphics card. The only thing they're used for is to output the stuff, not do any special operations on them. It is because of this that there can't be hardware acceleration of graphics and sound, but it is also because of this that the emulation speed is not limited by low-end graphics or sound solutions. Right, so in ePSXe with Pete plugins the graphical functions of Playstation are converted to OpenGL/Direct3D functions and handed to the graphic card to process and then display them is it? So why won't pSX do the same? We could have a software/hardware render option switch no? EDIT: I think I got it the CPU does all rendering, i.e. it creates the entire frame, rendering everything in RAM memory and then it sends the result to the GPU as a simple image, all the GPU does is display the image just like in a slideshow isn't it? 'Cause that's the only explanation I have to what just happened now. I've set the resolution to 320x240 and got 45 FPS, then I set the resolution to 1280x1024 and I still got 45 FPS! Pretty funky indeed.
|
|
|
Post by emulover on Jun 3, 2006 9:48:44 GMT -5
@ Timerever: When I say software rendering, I mean all the handling of textures, polygons, sounds, and whatnot are handled by pSX itself, not the sound card, not the graphics card. The only thing they're used for is to output the stuff, not do any special operations on them. It is because of this that there can't be hardware acceleration of graphics and sound, but it is also because of this that the emulation speed is not limited by low-end graphics or sound solutions. Right, so in ePSXe with Pete plugins the graphical functions of Playstation are converted to OpenGL/Direct3D functions and handed to the graphic card to process and then display them is it? So why won't pSX do the same? We could have a software/hardware render option switch no? EDIT: I think I got it the CPU does all rendering, i.e. it creates the entire frame, rendering everything in RAM memory and then it sends the result to the GPU as a simple image, all the GPU does is display the image just like in a slideshow isn't it? 'Cause that's the only explanation I have to what just happened now. I've set the resolution to 320x240 and got 45 FPS, then I set the resolution to 1024x1024 and I still got 45 FPS! Pretty funky indeed. thats exactly how it works and it doesnt use the hardware rendering because that would not be accurate, and accurateness is one of pSX author's goals. you can only achieve accurate in 100% software
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Jun 3, 2006 9:57:39 GMT -5
Yep. Direct3D and OpenGL don't have direct analogues to all the objects in the real PlayStation, so a conversion very easily introduces inaccuracies, since there will likely be a loss of information.
|
|
Timerever
New Member
Offtopic == Teh good!
Posts: 10
|
Post by Timerever on Jun 3, 2006 10:06:41 GMT -5
thats exactly how it works and it doesnt use the hardware rendering because that would not be accurate, and accurateness is one of pSX author's goals. you can only achieve accurate in 100% software Yep. Direct3D and OpenGL don't have direct analogues to all the objects in the real PlayStation, so a conversion very easily introduces inaccuracies, since there will likely be a loss of information. I see... so the only good solution is me getting a faster CPU since for this one would need to be overclocked all the way from 1300Mhz to 1742Mhz to run at full 60FPS ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Jun 3, 2006 10:11:26 GMT -5
Hm, I had expected that anything around 1GHz and above would be able to run pSX with full speed...
|
|
|
Post by Borisz on Jun 3, 2006 20:41:57 GMT -5
He has a Duron which is (I guess) a lot worse then the same class pentiums. I know that Celerons totally kicked the butt back and forth of my old AMD K6-2. Even at half the clockrate they were over 2x as fast when running emulators then my AMD cpu. Perhaps the same case applies here too.
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Jun 3, 2006 22:11:51 GMT -5
Hmm..? I don't see any mention of Duron anywhere In any case, this is going off-topic, so I'll exit my end of this digression here ;P
|
|
|
Post by Don Meu on Jun 4, 2006 1:54:46 GMT -5
SUGGESTIONS: 1) create a shortcut to "eject CD" in full screen mode. 2) more important, make accessible the main bar (file, quicksave, ...) in full screen mode. ciao
|
|
Timerever
New Member
Offtopic == Teh good!
Posts: 10
|
Post by Timerever on Jun 4, 2006 5:14:09 GMT -5
Hmm..? I don't see any mention of Duron anywhere In any case, this is going off-topic, so I'll exit my end of this digression here ;P Borisz knows me from other forum (and damn he seems to be everywhere ;D) And yeah, my CPU is probably über crap... That's it for feature requests anyway, so'll shut up.
|
|