Well, the most obvious advantage is that this emu is free . Secondly, it doesn't use any hacks whereas Magic Engine seems to be. Thirdly, and this may not count as advantage for some, everything is cycle based except the renderer which is line based. Simply put, it is like bsnes but it doesn't run things in parallel (thats on my todo list ). My current build can run all the Hucard games, except one, quite perfectly. I can fix this one game using a hack but I am not going to. This emu also has perfect SuperGrafx emulation whereas the SuperGrafx emulation in ME is more or less completely broken. Thats all I can think of . And I almost forgot, it has a cooler name than Magic Engine.FirebrandX wrote:Out of curiousity, what advantages does this emulator have over Magic Engine? I paid for my copy of Magic Engine some years back and have been thrilled with its overall accuracy and features ever since. Is this new emulator going to be more accurate? Again just curious.
But this emu has some disadvantages as well. Most obvious of them is that there is no CDROM emulation yet. Magic Engine can run that one game this emu can't. It does not supports 6-button/multitap controllers. ME has more features (for now ). This emulator is the slowest emu out there and requires a very powerful system to run full speed. This issue will be addressed in future. For now, the code is being kept simple.
And yeah, I am NOT trying to compete with Magic Engine or any other emu for that matter. I completely respect their work and I've heard the David Michel is a nice guy who shares his findings. So the above comparison is invalid .
Nice! . Your variant to INI sounds interesting. I haven't seen such small implementation. But the problem of varying field width is still there. For example, Cheat0=address:data,address:data......There can be one pair or as many as you like. This is hard to handle.byuu wrote:My parser's only ~80 lines and some type traits.