Hmm, Starfox plays fast on 10/24 build.

Gregory · Post by **Gregory** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:51 am

I like it.

Any chance of making that a toggle?

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:02 am

I think it's a known issue.

PFUNK · Post by **PFUNK** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:20 am

I remember when Nach was implementing an option in ZSNES to have SETA-10 games play in a "hard" mode (broken in the latest builds), but was shot down for, as MKendora may have called it, a "violation of all that emulation stands for."

That said, I doubt that the option for a speedier Super-FX will ever be implemented seeing as it is a broken feature just like "hard mode" option for SETA-10 games.

Post by **Nach** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:48 pm

Siva wrote:I remember when Nach was implementing an option in ZSNES to have SETA-10 games play in a "hard" mode (broken in the latest builds),

Nothing broken about it.

Siva wrote: That said, I doubt that the option for a speedier Super-FX will ever be implemented seeing as it is a broken feature just like "hard mode" option for SETA-10 games.

The Super FX does have a speed switch next to the ROM.

Dmog · Post by **Dmog** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:05 pm

Nach wrote:
Siva wrote:I remember when Nach was implementing an option in ZSNES to have SETA-10 games play in a "hard" mode (broken in the latest builds),
Nothing broken about it.

Siva wrote: That said, I doubt that the option for a speedier Super-FX will ever be implemented seeing as it is a broken feature just like "hard mode" option for SETA-10 games.
The Super FX does have a speed switch next to the ROM.

Just so I understand..the physical cart/chip had actually a speed switch inside? And Zsnes 10/24 wip is emulating Starfox at the wrong (i.e: not factory setting) "speed switch"? So it's possible to play Starfox on a real snes at this (faster) speed?

Post by **Nach** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:46 pm

Boards with a GSU-1 and GSU-2 had a speed switch on them. The Mario Chip 1 did not, and to my knowledge Star Fox was never released on anything but the MC1.

Dmog · Post by **Dmog** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:57 pm

Nach wrote:Boards with a GSU-1 and GSU-2 had a speed switch on them. The Mario Chip 1 did not, and to my knowledge Star Fox was never released on anything but the MC1.

So the speedier Starfox in 10/24 really is a broken "feature" then.

gaijinx1 · Post by **gaijinx1** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:20 pm

Broken, huh? I like it, it think that's awesome! That's how Snes9x runs it on my computer. Do people think it's bad because Star Fox is "broken". Are they sure the game isn't using a different SuperFX chip?

Post by **Nach** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:29 pm

Dmog wrote:
Nach wrote:Boards with a GSU-1 and GSU-2 had a speed switch on them. The Mario Chip 1 did not, and to my knowledge Star Fox was never released on anything but the MC1.
So the speedier Starfox in 10/24 really is a broken "feature" then.

If you would have read the Super FX threads, you would know that Super FX timing is off, it has nothing to do with pagefault's feature.

Dmog · Post by **Dmog** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:32 pm

Siva wrote:I remember when Nach was implementing an option in ZSNES to have SETA-10 games play in a "hard" mode (broken in the latest builds), but was shot down for, as MKendora may have called it, a "violation of all that emulation stands for."

That said, I doubt that the option for a speedier Super-FX will ever be implemented seeing as it is a broken feature just like "hard mode" option for SETA-10 games.

I'd tend to agree.That sort of mentality of trying to outperform the original system by removing slowdowns,removing sprites limitation etc just isn't right. It goes against the very concept of 'emulation'.

The Snes never had the horsepower to run 3d games in a fluid way.SuperFX or not. I mean let's face it, games like Starfox or Stunt race fx were kinda sluggish (though they had their good moments). If you want faster, less sluggish 3d gameplay, try you know, more recent systems.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:03 am

What if we just want to play the games, not relive our youth?

Post by **Nach** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:46 am

Noxious Ninja wrote:What if we just want to play the games, not relive our youth?

Some like tweaking the ROM, they do it by using cheat codes, hacking the actual code to it, etc...

Others like to to tweak the emulator, to each his own.

Either way it's not the original game, although the former seems to be accepted, and for the latter, well you can't stop me from using my own personal builds.

Dmog · Post by **Dmog** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:22 am

Noxious Ninja wrote:What if we just want to play the games, not relive our youth?

A better question would be: Why would you want to use an emulator of a console you don't even like or care for? Iow,why would you want to play games that you feel are so lacking (on the native hardware they ran on) that you feel the need to try to make them "better" than they originally were by using all sorts of hacks specifically designed for this effect?

Why try to virtually transform the Snes into something it never were to begin with? If you can't stand the system's original limitations, why would you want to have anything to do with it? No mater how much you try to "improve" the emulated system, it'll never reach the technical standards of modern consoles/PCgames. All this doesn't make much sense imo..

@Nach
Private builts, as the name implies, you do whatever you want with them.Well, a programmer can also do whatever he want with the official releases I guess, but I think it's a shame that these kind of "improve-upon-original" hacks (like a hack that remove slowdowns) may get implemented because some kiddies like it better that way.

A shame our standards aren't anywhere near close as those of Mame...There, if someone sugested something similar to that of the OP,they would get shot down so fast they wouldn't even know what hit them.

Post by **Nach** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:52 am

If you had the choice between flickering and flicker free, you would pick flickering?

You have to go out on a limb and say, oh it's supposed to be flickering, that's nice and all but honestly, which do you prefer?

captain puke · Post by **captain puke** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:39 pm

Nach wrote:If you had the choice between flickering and flicker free, you would pick flickering?

You have to go out on a limb and say, oh it's supposed to be flickering, that's nice and all but honestly, which do you prefer?

Could you give any examples ??? (of flickering games that is ) just curious

Post by **Nach** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:47 pm

Mega Man X 2

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:01 pm

Dmog wrote:
Noxious Ninja wrote:What if we just want to play the games, not relive our youth?
A better question would be: Why would you want to use an emulator of a console you don't even like or care for? Iow,why would you want to play games that you feel are so lacking (on the native hardware they ran on) that you feel the need to try to make them "better" than they originally were by using all sorts of hacks specifically designed for this effect?

Why try to virtually transform the Snes into something it never were to begin with? If you can't stand the system's original limitations, why would you want to have anything to do with it? No mater how much you try to "improve" the emulated system, it'll never reach the technical standards of modern consoles/PCgames. All this doesn't make much sense imo...

Yes, but if you could very easily remove some of the limitations which the original developers would've removed if possible, why wouldn't you make that an option?

Post by **grinvader** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:28 pm

Nach wrote:Mega Man X 2

Wha-uh ?

I have the PAL cart on the realSNES, and there's not a single flicker in the whole game. It runs 20% slower due to PAL50 horror, but no flicker whatsoever.

Post by **Nach** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:25 pm

grinvader wrote:
Nach wrote:Mega Man X 2
Wha-uh ?

I have the PAL cart on the realSNES, and there's not a single flicker in the whole game. It runs 20% slower due to PAL50 horror, but no flicker whatsoever.

Putting me to the test, eh?
Okay, I'll take that challenge.

Notice on a real system and Snes9x you will get this:

On ZSNES, no flickering power bars.

There's other differences too. I implemented 1 Op more accurate than the C4 was capable of handling, I'll post example later.

Post by **grinvader** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:50 pm

Nach wrote:Putting me to the test, eh?
Okay, I'll take that challenge.

Notice on a real system and Snes9x you will get this:
http://nsrt.edgeemu.com/images/snes9x/mmx2.png

On ZSNES, no flickering power bars.

There's other differences too. I implemented 1 Op more accurate than the C4 was capable of handling, I'll post example later.

Wow, I always thought it was due to sprite-per-line limitations and never considered those flickering...

There's also the wing of Morph Moth, 90% of the time when you kill it the biggest wing flickers. I completely forgot about it...
Last time I played it in ZSNES (a long time ago...), the wing did flicker.

Post by **Nach** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:17 pm

Well now you see there are limitations in the real hardware, yes the boss flicker glitch you pointed out, I remember that.

The various emulators implement limitations to a different degree.

Another case, in the Overide Ostrich stage in MMX2, by the infamous bridge, shoot the the thing till it goes down as far as it can. You'll notice the bridge isn't straight on your console. That's because the multiplication used in the C4 isn't accurate enough.
Using standard x86 multiplication, my bridge seemed to have two parts equally straight but not level with each other which didn't look like the console (you can see this in Snes9x if you use anomie's C4 core instead of mine). After talking it over with TRAC, I made the multiplied result rounded, and that turns out more accurate than the system.

Completely straight! Sure go ahead and sue me for making my C4 multiplication Op better than the C4's.

And while I was getting this snapshot, I decided to see how Overload handled it in his emulator, and I was in for a pleasent suprise:

Seems Overload has to work on his C4 core a bit.
Guess I shouldn't feel so bad that it took me forever to get that bridge displayed and working correctly.

Link for old memories http://www.snes9x.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7733
Unforunetly most of the images are no longer around, and I don't have them archived.

AspiringSquire · Post by **AspiringSquire** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:03 am

Noxious Ninja wrote:
Dmog wrote:
Noxious Ninja wrote:What if we just want to play the games, not relive our youth?
A better question would be: Why would you want to use an emulator of a console you don't even like or care for? Iow,why would you want to play games that you feel are so lacking (on the native hardware they ran on) that you feel the need to try to make them "better" than they originally were by using all sorts of hacks specifically designed for this effect?

Why try to virtually transform the Snes into something it never were to begin with? If you can't stand the system's original limitations, why would you want to have anything to do with it? No mater how much you try to "improve" the emulated system, it'll never reach the technical standards of modern consoles/PCgames. All this doesn't make much sense imo...
Yes, but if you could very easily remove some of the limitations which the original developers would've removed if possible, why wouldn't you make that an option?

I think of it in terms of upgrading a PC to play high-end games more smoothly. This doesn't offend the developers in any way; they would probably encourage it if you experienced low frame rates. There are minimum system requirements to run PC games, but there is no reason to avoid playing them on better systems just because that "fixes" problems with slowdown. I see nothing wrong with having an option to resolve the limitations of the hardware, especially since it isn't like you're then able to play with invincibility or some other cheat; it is more like playing as the game creators would have had it, as Noxious Ninja stated above.

Post by **grinvader** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:08 am

Nach wrote:Link for old memories http://www.snes9x.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7733
Unforunetly most of the images are no longer around, and I don't have them archived.

I read this topic as it was written, so I remember the pics... on the realsnes, the last block or two are slightly displaced.

Maybe we should try to recreate the error for MK's sake...

Dmog · Post by **Dmog** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:51 pm

AspiringSquire wrote:
Noxious Ninja wrote:
Dmog wrote:
Noxious Ninja wrote:What if we just want to play the games, not relive our youth?
A better question would be: Why would you want to use an emulator of a console you don't even like or care for? Iow,why would you want to play games that you feel are so lacking (on the native hardware they ran on) that you feel the need to try to make them "better" than they originally were by using all sorts of hacks specifically designed for this effect?

Why try to virtually transform the Snes into something it never were to begin with? If you can't stand the system's original limitations, why would you want to have anything to do with it? No mater how much you try to "improve" the emulated system, it'll never reach the technical standards of modern consoles/PCgames. All this doesn't make much sense imo...
Yes, but if you could very easily remove some of the limitations which the original developers would've removed if possible, why wouldn't you make that an option?
I think of it in terms of upgrading a PC to play high-end games more smoothly. This doesn't offend the developers in any way; they would probably encourage it if you experienced low frame rates. There are minimum system requirements to run PC games, but there is no reason to avoid playing them on better systems just because that "fixes" problems with slowdown. I see nothing wrong with having an option to resolve the limitations of the hardware, especially since it isn't like you're then able to play with invincibility or some other cheat; it is more like playing as the game creators would have had it, as Noxious Ninja stated above.

An *Option*...I'm cool with it I guess. So long as you give the option between "optimized" (or "bastardized" as I would probably call it) it's allright. The problem is when you -don't- give the..you guess it, option,because the coder don't feel there's a need for it.

And you can't really compare console emulation with playing PC games on more performant machines...Console games are 'meant' (yeah, I know some of you don't like the word) to be played on standardized hardware.PC games are not. No matter on which Gamecube you're running Metroid Prime, it's always running on the same hardware. The performance is always the same, unless you have a defective unit or something.

Dmog · Post by **Dmog** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:41 pm

Nach wrote:
Noxious Ninja wrote:What if we just want to play the games, not relive our youth?
Some like tweaking the ROM, they do it by using cheat codes, hacking the actual code to it, etc...

Others like to to tweak the emulator, to each his own.

Either way it's not the original game, although the former seems to be accepted, and for the latter, well you can't stop me from using my own personal builds.

..Rom tweaking/hacking only affects that specfic rom while hacking the emulator itself affect every games (unless it's a game-specific hack) depending of the type of hack/"tweak".