PDA

View Full Version : No plugins for project64 just like PSX 1.13, Would it work?


mellorit
17th September 2009, 10:31 AM
Would it not be best to have no plugins for project64, just like PSX 1.13?

See hear

http://psxemulator.gazaxian.com/

It uses the most of your pc's hardware insted of plugins, And i must admit it works very well, Aprat from a few games!..


Qwestion is would it work? :confused:

Sugestion... Ok some people do like plugins!, Mabe they could be two versions of project64 one with plugins.. and one without?!

ASH2
17th September 2009, 01:44 PM
And if thats not possible maybe a plugin pack and each game has a pre-set plugin config

so if x game works better with sound plugin y and graphics plugin z you can select Best setup for this game and PJ64 installs and sets up the right plugins
for every game selected.

squall_leonhart
17th September 2009, 01:51 PM
no.
just.
no.

mellorit
17th September 2009, 02:13 PM
no.
just.
no.

I supose it would just be to much work lol!

squall_leonhart
17th September 2009, 02:51 PM
It'd cripple the emulators capabilities alot.

mellorit
17th September 2009, 03:18 PM
It'd cripple the emulators capabilities alot.

ASH2 Message mabe!

I ment a emulator that autodetects your hardware.. video,sound,joypad,rom est, like psx would!

Then again n64 games work's much diffrent then psx games would!

Stewie
21st September 2009, 11:17 PM
psx 1.13 is a dull emulator, plugins based are much better as it attracts developers to create plugins

Emmett
24th September 2009, 07:19 PM
Is it possible? Yes. Is it desirable? Definitely not!
Different plugins allow you to get different capabilities for different games. No one plugin is "best". So by limiting yourself to no plugins or to perhaps only 1 standard plugin is really a bad idea!

However, the idea that games should have the plugin that works best automatically loaded is an interesting concept. But, just because a plugin is best for a game on your computer doesn't necessarily mean that it will even run on mine! We've all seen our share of error messages when trying different plugins.

Perhaps better yet would be a list of all games, and the plugins that work best with them. That way you could just download or view the list online and know what plugin you need to load manually. Although compiling a list would definitely not be fun, and very time consuming!

Perhaps the reason you are asking for a no plugin system is because of the complexity and the learning curve, as well as just plain 'ol having no clue what plugin would work best. I think this forum needs some definite guides for pj64 use. It's got some on the main site, but there are no pictures or anything. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to making some, but as for now I just got Snow Leopard and don't have windows installed.

HatCat
24th September 2009, 10:32 PM
Is it possible? Yes. Is it desirable? Definitely not!
Different plugins allow you to get different capabilities for different games. No one plugin is "best". So by limiting yourself to no plugins or to perhaps only 1 standard plugin is really a bad idea!

However, the idea that games should have the plugin that works best automatically loaded is an interesting concept. But, just because a plugin is best for a game on your computer doesn't necessarily mean that it will even run on mine! We've all seen our share of error messages when trying different plugins.

Perhaps better yet would be a list of all games, and the plugins that work best with them. That way you could just download or view the list online and know what plugin you need to load manually. Although compiling a list would definitely not be fun, and very time consuming!

Perhaps the reason you are asking for a no plugin system is because of the complexity and the learning curve, as well as just plain 'ol having no clue what plugin would work best. I think this forum needs some definite guides for pj64 use. It's got some on the main site, but there are no pictures or anything. Maybe one of these days I'll get around to making some, but as for now I just got Snow Leopard and don't have windows installed.

I like your thinking.

Emmett
25th September 2009, 05:40 AM
I like your thinking.

:D Wow I don't hear that very much lol

HatCat
25th September 2009, 06:43 AM
:D Wow I don't hear that very much lol

One reason it is possible to not have a plug-in system, it has more closer to always been done. With some emulators for like N64, the idea of plug-ins wasn't really accepted until this one dude published some versions of his "plugin specifications". This reference is what working plug-ins, that load on emulators having implemented this system, have in common to all work.

Even before then, there was some really great processing code that contributed, some even more than what is known today. Thus I don't think to say some system for plug-ins is really needed--in fact leaving processing code to be built into an emulator could even encourage more professional development--but because emulation here is harder, someone thought more teamwork is useful.

For your idea about having just a list of what plug-ins should be used for certain games, for user reference, what do you think about this nifty table someone made a few years back?
http://bmgcl.emuxhaven.net/n64mgcl/N64ConfigList.htm

Emmett
25th September 2009, 05:54 PM
Rswedlow, that link just made my day!

Funny, I've been to that site before, and I even thought about it when I typed my earlier comment about having a complete list, but for some reason I only remembered the site having what emulators work best, not plugins. Thanks!

RchUncleSkeleton
25th September 2009, 10:50 PM
I think a good idea would be to have the RDB have the best plugin for each rom, so when the rom is loaded it changes the plugin to the best one for that specific rom. the same way the RDB currently changes many options per rom.

HatCat
25th September 2009, 11:04 PM
Sometimes there is more than one plug-in that works best or near equally, or there are no plug-ins that render the game sufficiently to the point where optimization is based on your own hardware and software.

I think what could work for some database is to store all the cartridge IDs and suggest some options in some clear cases, but if things ever get messed up it could be good to just have the user set automatic plug-ins manually.
There are also concerns like newer plug-in versions or only a certain legacy version working best for a game, but in the future after the database is set another version is released that works just fine.

Rswedlow, that link just made my day!

Funny, I've been to that site before, and I even thought about it when I typed my earlier comment about having a complete list, but for some reason I only remembered the site having what emulators work best, not plugins. Thanks!

A lot of people contributed to that list, though many people with their own findings aren't familiar with it. There are actually many things missing, so someone, after a failing process to just suggest corrections, wrote and sent a CHM for the emulators and plug-ins in Bighead's download section. It's a smaller list though though just if you're interested.

RchUncleSkeleton
26th September 2009, 05:31 AM
it really does depend of your graphics card and setup so I guess it wouldn't be the same in all cases , thus the site suggestions for plugins don't always work for everyone anyways, unless it's been tested on all hardware.

HatCat
26th September 2009, 07:09 AM
That's not totally the issue today.
Emulators like Project64 already are setup by default to assume accepted specifications, so to support older-end technology would just contradict.

More primarily, when a game is so easy or hard to decide one or more best plug-ins for--such that it becomes hard to decide one over some other ones--then is when things like your hardware and software (e.g. graphics card) define preference.

mellorit
4th October 2009, 05:34 PM
Yes i was talking about one for each, A one with plugins for low end pc users and one for very hi end pc users with no plugins

HatCat
4th October 2009, 07:19 PM
The other issues still apply, but that could have worked given there were appropriate improvements.

What you said about N64 games working way different from PSX games is one thing to think; the other is that there is much more uniqueness for most N64 games. In this case, the environment almost calls for game-dependent configurations for better results in most cases.

If plug-ins are to be removed to one set for internal processing, it will take much of this to compile.

For graphics plug-ins, there are so many different projects that have their own knowledge and success that the others don't, it would take much a long time to have them all team up and agree on universal code fit for dissolving the freedom of processor switching.

Imgema
24th December 2009, 05:07 PM
I think the people behind Retrocopy project have plans for an extremely accurate (at the cycle level) N64 emulator in the future.

This means it will be almost 100% compatible as if you had a real N64 machine inside the PC, with no pluggins or many options to mess around. But it will also mean that it will need a beast to run well and it won't have all the goodies current emus have like Hi-rez texture support.

squall_leonhart
25th December 2009, 02:01 AM
This means it will be almost 100% compatible as if you had a real N64 machine inside the PC, with no pluggins or many options to mess around. But it will also mean that it will need a beast to run well and it won't have all the goodies current emus have like Hi-rez texture support.

i lolled at this......

Imgema
25th December 2009, 12:20 PM
i lolled at this......

Was a specific part so funny to you or the whole thing?

By the way, this is a post from Retrocopy's author:

"The goal of RetroCopy is to hide all the complexity and just let people play games accurately... I do like the N64 and would like to add it at some stage. However our PCs just aren't fast enough yet to do it very accurately. When the default PC is a 4GHz I7 then I may consider it (as I would likely have some 6GHz thing).
There are about 5? guys working at the moment to get more information about how the N64 works - they are on the frontier. I've been on the frontier for 4 of the 5 systems in RetroCopy and it does wear you down, so it's also easier to let those guys build the knowledge up as much as possible and then use it. So maybe in a year or so it will be possible from a speed perspective and from a knowledge one."

squall_leonhart
25th December 2009, 10:19 PM
The reason why n64 emulators have support for barely 70% of the games is because of custom microcodes.

Imgema
25th December 2009, 11:58 PM
The reason why n64 emulators have support for barely 70% of the games is because of custom microcodes.

Well, you certainly know more about this stuff than me so i can't argue with you. All i know is what others, who know more than me, say.

I've seen a few accurate "at cycle level" emulators like Bsnes and they are pretty accurate indeed. I tested some games that had glitches and stuff on other emulators and these work great on Bsnes, although my Pentium4 3.0gz cpu can't handle it well. I don't know what cycle level really means, all i know is that it works so far for Bsnes and for the few systems retrocopy supports at the moment.

So, what i can understand from your last post is that N64 is different, because of microcodes inside the carts right? So a possible accurate N64 emulator still won't run these games? To tell you the truth i didn't know that.

squall_leonhart
27th December 2009, 10:12 PM
certain games had entirely new microcodes, and gfx engines designed to extend and support the additional draw distance, and gfx quality, Rogue Squadron, and BfN for instance.

Gauntlet Legends 64 is another game which doesn't have the hud gfx full emulated.

retrocopy would likely be a 1:1 LLE attempt, it'll need alot of computing power, but unless the microcodes for some of the games with custom setups are found, they will still be missing gfx or effects.