Thanks to orwannon for the bug report.2008-03-23 - bsnes v0.030 released
I didn't want to release a new version so soon, however there is a rather serious bug in bsnes v029 where the path information for the save RAM files is discarded when one has not selected a default save RAM / cheat path from the path settings tab in the configuration settings window. Because of this, it gets stored to the base directory. For Windows users, this is c:\, and for Linux users, this is /
This bug forced my hand, so I'm releasing v030 to correct this issue. I also cleaned up the S-DSP emulation code to be more consistent with my programming style -- it gets bit-perfect matches to v029's wave output, so I don't foresee there being any problems.
bsnes v030 released
bsnes v030 released
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: bsnes v030 released
Heh, I noticed this but forgot about it, sorry. Glad you got the bug report, and thanks for the release. What do you plan to work on now?byuu wrote:I didn't want to release a new version so soon, however there is a rather serious bug in bsnes v029 where the path information for the save RAM files is discarded when one has not selected a default save RAM / cheat path from the path settings tab in the configuration settings window. Because of this, it gets stored to the base directory. For Windows users, this is c:\, and for Linux users, this is /
-
- Trooper
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:11 am
- Location: Space
Looked at v028, it uses the new libco, so it was some other change.
I don't have the hosting space to post every WIP, so let's figure it out in log N then.
Does this version run at the speed of v028 or v029 for you?
I don't have the hosting space to post every WIP, so let's figure it out in log N then.
Code: Select all
http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip10.zip
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
My Core 2 Duo laptop (which I was hesitant to test 'cuz it's been unstable, but it should be valid) apparently has the same problem that ShadowFX is experiencing.byuu wrote:Looked at v028, it uses the new libco, so it was some other change.
I don't have the hosting space to post every WIP, so let's figure it out in log N then.
Does this version run at the speed of v028 or v029 for you?Code: Select all
http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip10.zip
Between 0.028 and 0.028 wip 10, SMB all stars intro (with everyone talking in the background):
0.028 gets ~52 fps
0.028 wip 10 gets ~32 fps (!)
Might be faster to upload them all to a fileshare site as a zip and then FirebrandX can run through them all and determine which one it was that broke his speed.byuu wrote: I don't have the hosting space to post every WIP
Vegas guess so far: the new stretch-to-fit fullscreen changes are wreaking havoc on nvidia drivers!
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Speed this up a bit, won't be able to post more until later tonight though.
Code: Select all
http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip03.zip
http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip05.zip
http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip08.zip
WIP 03 still has the slowdowns herebyuu wrote:Speed this up a bit, won't be able to post more until later tonight though.
Code: Select all
http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip03.zip http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip05.zip http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/temp/bsnes_v028_wip08.zip
WIP 05 crashes on ROM load
WIP 08 crashes on ROM load
[i]"Change is inevitable; progress is optional"[/i]
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
diff -ru wip00 wip03:
RGB565->RGB888 makes up 99% of the difference, so that's apparently the problem.
Maybe try setting your desktop to use 32-bits per pixel video output? It might help.
Code: Select all
if(caps.stretchrect == true) {
- device->CreateOffscreenPlainSurface(1024, 1024, D3DFMT_R5G6B5,
+ device->CreateOffscreenPlainSurface(1024, 1024, D3DFMT_X8R8G8B8,
D3DPOOL_DEFAULT, &surface, NULL);
} else {
- device->CreateTexture(1024, 1024, 1, flags.t_usage, D3DFMT_R5G6B5,
+ device->CreateTexture(1024, 1024, 1, flags.t_usage, D3DFMT_X8R8G8B8,
static_cast<D3DPOOL>(flags.t_pool), &texture, NULL);
}
Maybe try setting your desktop to use 32-bits per pixel video output? It might help.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Thank you for making this emulator. I just upgraded my PC to a Dual Core 2.6 (Athlon 5000) and Arbee and KillerBee/Mitchell seemed to like the emulator, so I gave it a try!
Street Fighter Alpha 2 works WITHOUT a patch? COOL! Clayfighters play the music w/VOICE! COOL!
Megaman X3 works! COOL!
I'm sure what is left that isn't supported will work someday. I'll think Arbee "Be patient and cool things will happen!"
Thanks again!
Street Fighter Alpha 2 works WITHOUT a patch? COOL! Clayfighters play the music w/VOICE! COOL!
Megaman X3 works! COOL!
I'm sure what is left that isn't supported will work someday. I'll think Arbee "Be patient and cool things will happen!"
Thanks again!
-Nintendo fanboy since 1994.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Are you running the same driver version in both boxes? If you are, then the bug might still be one of those driver bugs that manifests itself only on certain card models. I doubt the CPU has anything to do with it.Verdauga Greeneyes wrote:Only on a Core 2 Duo, it seems.. atleast, my desktop has a GF6600 and an Athlon 64 X2, and it's fine.FitzRoy wrote:So... nvidia's drivers hate the rgb888 conversion?
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
It's possible I suppose. I think ShadowFX said he has a GeForce 7950 something, so it could be a 7-series thing. My laptop is using the latest leaked driver, 174.70, whereas my desktop is slightly behind at 174.16..FitzRoy wrote:Are you running the same driver version in both boxes? If you are, then the bug might still be one of those driver bugs that manifests itself only on certain card models. I doubt the CPU has anything to do with it.
It's not a GeForce 7950 issue.
Roommate's PC we built uses GeForce 7950 GT with Core 2 Q6600, it gets ~3-5fps slower than my E6600. Nowhere near the dips you guys are seeing.
I would think the fact that we both are using Core 2 processors rules that out as well.
It's definitely the RGB888 conversion that's the culprit, now we just need to figure out why.
Roommate's PC we built uses GeForce 7950 GT with Core 2 Q6600, it gets ~3-5fps slower than my E6600. Nowhere near the dips you guys are seeing.
I would think the fact that we both are using Core 2 processors rules that out as well.
It's definitely the RGB888 conversion that's the culprit, now we just need to figure out why.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Is ShadowFX testing on a laptop? I can't remember.. Intel laptop chipsets generally run the FSB at a (much) lower speed than their desktop equivalents - could this become a bottleneck for the texture transfer into video memory at 32-bits? (I'm certain that my laptop's Core 2 Duo is a lot slower than a normal one - it runs at 2.0GHz, but just look at the speed I got even in 0.028)
Edit: by the way, why are you creating a surface/texture exactly 1024x1024 pixels in size? The code you posted is kinda out of context, so I suppose it might be obvious if I looked at the source code.
Edit: by the way, why are you creating a surface/texture exactly 1024x1024 pixels in size? The code you posted is kinda out of context, so I suppose it might be obvious if I looked at the source code.
Max size is ~600x480 output, eg for NTSC filter with interlaced output. I rounded that up to the nearest power of two texture. Yes, 1024x512 is probably possible, but I'm not too worried about VRAM usage. It's also reserved in case one day I make something like hires HQ2x, or HQ4x (hahah.) We're at ~3-6MB total. Anything less, and you probably don't want to use bsnes anyway.Edit: by the way, why are you creating a surface/texture exactly 1024x1024 pixels in size?
Voodoo 3 users and their 256x256 texture limit are out of luck.