Choppiness /w HQ4X in Chrono Trigger

[Mr Bojangles]

Hey,

I'm experiencing choppiness in the game Chrono Trigger whenever I have the characters run on any screen (other than the world map). The choppiness kicks in every 2-3 seconds, as if several frames are being skipped in even increments.

I'm using the following video settings:

1280x1024 DR

HQ4x
(toggling tripple buffering,vsync,and max skip frame doesn't seem to affect much, -6 argument is enabled)

My system specs:

P4 3.2
1024 ram
Geforce 6600gt

Interestingly enough, if I disable auto frame rate, everything runs smoothly. However, the problem with this is that game speed increases drastically with even a rate of 0.

The skipping I experience does not disappear until I reduce the resolution to 640x480 (with all of the same settings).

While I realize that I could just play at this lower setting or switch over to a different filtering engine, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could offer me some suggestions that might fix this problem - I'd like to run at 1280x1024. Thanks in advance.

[Agozer]

Well, all I can say is that HQ4X is *very* CPU intensive. That being said, I'm not surprised at all with the results you are getting with such high resolution.

But I could be wrong, and there's a solution other than dropping the resolution.

[grinvader]

Use Triple buffering (along with hq4x and autoframeskip). It should prevent speed breakups.

Or, if your monitor refresh is 60Hz/120Hz while running zsnes, you can use vsync.

[Mr Bojangles]

While I can believe that 1280x1024 might not run smoothly, I find it surprising that 800x600 doesn't work too well either. Has anyone ever tried using this filter in Chrono Trigger? In other games it seems to give me a smooth framerate at 1280x1024.

[Paul Bunyan]

800x600FULL works for me with HQ3X filter at a constant 60/60 with no visible lag

no triple buffering or vsync was enabled

when I take it up to 1280x1024FULL with HQ4X the framerate is usually 50 or above with visible choppiness, triple buffering and vsync appear to make the gameplay more choppy.

Auto Frame skip was always on and max frames skipped was set to 0 for my tests.

Specs
P4 3.06 HT on
1.5 GB DDR SDRAM at 333MHz
NVIDIA 5200 w/128 vRAM

[Agozer]

The HQxx filters have never been smooth on my computer. I do have a powerful system, but it seems tht HQxx behaves differently on different systems, even if the specs are high.

[Dead]

Could somebody please tell me what attributes to look for in a new video card to maximize the performance under HQ3x and HQ4x? My CPU is a P4 2.0GHz, which should be enough.

In the ZSNES forum before this one, somebody listed off the specs that were important for HQXx to perform well. I can recall that CPU speed and video memory upload bandwith(I think) were two of the factors, but I think there were more.

Also, if MaxSt reads this, I hope he can answer a question for me. How do you implement HQ3x in 800 x 600 screen mode? Wouldn't the vertical resolution need to be at least 672 pixels? A long time ago, I think I recall you saying that you were especially pleased with how that resolution worked with HQ3x. I would be interested to know why.

My two most favorite features of ZSNES are the GUI and the HQXx filters. I may have said it before, but thank you Nach, pagefault, _demo_, MaxSt, and the rest, for contributing your time and effort into coding, and sharing ZSNES with us.

edit: I remember somebody saying that ZSNES ran at a full 60 FPS on all the possible resolutions. I wonder if it makes a difference whether Radeon or nVidia cards are used. Maybe the version of DirectX might matter, if Windows is the operating system.

[Clements]

For hqXx filters to run smoothly, you'll simply need a fast system. However, even on my system I can get some choppiness in games that have detailed backgrounds when I move around fast (such as those in Chrono Trigger), due to the way the filter is coded.

I pretty sure that no system can get 60/60 with all games and hq4x. Getting a faster system will minimise the choppiness, particularly CPU and graphics card. But I'd simply follow grinvader's steps to avoid slowdown.

[Cloud Strife]

Heh. Runs fine on my PC. No framerate issues whatsoever on HQ4X. Anti-aliasing also runs fine on other emulators as well.

[Noxious Ninja]

I wish MaxSt would post his framebuffer upload speed tester again. That would answer all our questions.

[MaxSt]

Could somebody please tell me what attributes to look for in a new video card to maximize the performance under HQ3x and HQ4x? My CPU is a P4 2.0GHz, which should be enough.

I think only AGP speed makes some difference, so any AGP8X card should be fine.

Also, if MaxSt reads this, I hope he can answer a question for me. How do you implement HQ3x in 800 x 600 screen mode? Wouldn't the vertical resolution need to be at least 672 pixels?

Yeah. So I downscale it vertically from 672 to 600. Strictly speaking, tt's a violation of "DR" spec, but it looks good.

A long time ago, I think I recall you saying that you were especially pleased with how that resolution worked with HQ3x. I would be interested to know why.

I like the aspect ratio in that mode.

MaxSt

[MaxSt]

I wish MaxSt would post his framebuffer upload speed tester again. That would answer all our questions.

Well, it only answered one question, really, that "system memory -> video memory" transfer is not a bottleneck.

It showed that actual transfer speed is close to theoretical limits of AGP, and AGP4X and AGP8X are very fast. So it's not a bottleneck. Fast CPU is what's important.

MaxSt

[Noxious Ninja]

I wish MaxSt would post his framebuffer upload speed tester again. That would answer all our questions.

Well, it only answered one question, really, that "system memory -> video memory" transfer is not a bottleneck.

It showed that actual transfer speed is close to theoretical limits of AGP, and AGP4X and AGP8X are very fast. So it's not a bottleneck. Fast CPU is what's important.

MaxSt

Oh, I thought some cards had slow uploads. Oops.

[Dead]

I think only AGP speed makes some difference, so any AGP8X card should be fine.

Great! So a PCI Express system would give plenty of breathing room.

Yeah. So I downscale it vertically from 672 to 600. Strictly speaking, tt's a violation of "DR" spec, but it looks good.

Well, that's what I suspected, but I wasn't sure. I thought that maybe you applied some exotic graphics mojo that I had never heard of.

I like the aspect ratio in that mode.
MaxSt

Me too. Monitor screen area size controls can only go so far to correct the aspect ratio of 1024 x768 and 1280x1024 modes. However, I've been experimenting with custom resolutions and windowed DR modes. That is another option for people who want to tweak the aspect ratio.

[kieran_]

The HQxx filters have never been smooth on my computer. I do have a powerful system, but it seems tht HQxx behaves differently on different systems, even if the specs are high.

I thought you had a shitty PII, like me?

[Agozer]

The HQxx filters have never been smooth on my computer. I do have a powerful system, but it seems tht HQxx behaves differently on different systems, even if the specs are high.

I thought you had a shitty PII, like me?

That was my old computer, and it was a Pentium, not Pentium II.

Now I have and AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512MB RAM, and ATi Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB memory. I consider that pretty powerful, not for long though.

[Nach]

Now I have and AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512MB RAM, and ATi Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB memory. I consider that pretty powerful, not for long though.

Lets be honest/realistic here. Do you really think 5 years from now that machine will be underpowered in any way to do your main computer needs?

[Nightcrawler]

As soon as Longhorn comes out.. yes.

[Neo Kaiser]

As soon as Longhorn comes out.. yes.

It don't look that different from Win Xp.

[Noxious Ninja]

Now I have and AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512MB RAM, and ATi Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB memory. I consider that pretty powerful, not for long though.

Lets be honest/realistic here. Do you really think 5 years from now that machine will be underpowered in any way to do your main computer needs?

An Athlon XP 1700+, 256MB RAM, and a GeForce 2 MX could run almost everything I use quite nicely. That's already 3-4 year old tech.

If it weren't for audio/video encoding and games I would be quite interested in a mini-ITX PC.

Hell, if it weren't for games my main OS would probably be Linux/FreeBSD with KDE.

[Agozer]

Now I have and AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512MB RAM, and ATi Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB memory. I consider that pretty powerful, not for long though.

Lets be honest/realistic here. Do you really think 5 years from now that machine will be underpowered in any way to do your main computer needs?

Not really, I was just being sarcastic without the

[grinvader]

when I take it up to 1280x1024FULL with HQ4X the framerate is usually 50 or above with visible choppiness, triple buffering and vsync appear to make the gameplay more choppy.

Auto Frame skip was always on and max frames skipped was set to 0 for my tests.

And what happens if you actually enable frameskip ?
Please put that to 9 and tell me if there's increased choppiness under triple buffering/vsync.

[snkcube]

As soon as Longhorn comes out.. yes.

It don't look that different from Win Xp.

From what I read, it uses a lot of Direct X 9.0.

[Nach]

As soon as Longhorn comes out.. yes.

You honestly telling me you need Longhorn and must use it?

I despise WinNT especially XP for a variety of reasons. Now that they tell you the next OS will require 4GHz dual core CPU, GB of RAM, TB of HD, and a video card 3 times better than the top of the line card now, I can't possibly imagine why'd you want to use such an OS. Bloatware would be understatement of the year.

I like how in one of the previews someone asked what's so special about it? So MS shows off how they can have 4 instances of Windows Media Player plus some FPS running in the background simotainously. Aside from the fact no one cares about watching 4 movies at once and playing a game at the same time, you can do that with current hardware if you just decide to use something better than WMP.

[Dead]

...I can't possibly imagine why'd you want to use such an OS. ...Bloatware would be understatement of the year.
I like how in one of the previews someone asked what's so special about it? ...you can do that with current hardware if you just decide to use something better than WMP.

Right on. It is points such as these that have made me bitter and suspicious of the industry for quite some time. Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft has a secret contract with hardware producers to constantly bloat up their operating systems so that, because of the increased system requirements, people are forced to repeatedly upgrade their hardware because they are afraid of not staying current. This prevents a market slowdown that would make it harder for the status quo to keep their comfortable position.