Project64 Forums

Project64 Forums (http://forum.pj64-emu.com/index.php)
-   Open Discussion (http://forum.pj64-emu.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Project64 source code (http://forum.pj64-emu.com/showthread.php?t=4806)

zilmar 11th January 2015 10:14 PM

Project64 source code
 
the repository for the source code is at:
https://github.com/project64/project64

zilmar 11th January 2015 10:16 PM

there is also the ability to add bugs there
https://github.com/project64/project64/issues

for bugs that I can work on to fix they probably should go there, cause I can not remember what bugs actually need to be fixed.

Please note this does not cover any graphics bugs, just the core emu/rsp compiler.

HatCat 12th January 2015 01:00 AM

I wish you luck with your project and hope you will attract the social teamwork necessary to help you.

zilmar 12th January 2015 01:38 AM

it has the chance for it but I doubt I will. I had it in git anyway in a private repository that was before the release now it is released no reason to have the private one, might as well be on git hub.

Not to mention at times I come back and look at things and go what are the issues again.

HatCat 12th January 2015 02:05 AM

To be honest I don't feel that it will attract the attention, but I'm sure that some people will want to come forward.

I know Azimer was still talking about contributing some stuff to audio, but then he definitely switched back to life mode for the time.
We were just talking about modifying the audio specs for some of our own reasons, but he knows much more.

Predator82 12th January 2015 11:11 AM

There´s a pull request on git
Is this tested & comes soon?

HatCat 13th January 2015 06:05 PM

Nothing personal, but that is one pull request I would not want to accept in any repo.

See, this is a challenging aspect of open-source: Organization. You must be very detailed to have an organized, documented tree of source feedback. If you don't, then it's just, "My code is improved over your code; therefore you should merge it." If not done healthily, it's possible for open-source to expose more arrogance than what could have happened in closed-source. (That being said, it's a moot discussion mostly since zilmar only published the public Git repository since there is no longer a need for the private one anyway at this point, not because he's targeting open-source principles.)

If you look at that PR you'll see commits of various types (compatibility fixes, optimizations, accuracy "changes") all mixed together in one pull request. I think zilmar shouldn't merge that--not because the changes are bad, but because it's too ambiguous. He cannot verify the solidity of all of those changes of different types in an efficient amount of time, and there is NO explanation on the PR.

I recommend taking it slower! When I started sending pull requests I did maybe 1 or 2 commit at a time, both of strongly related commit reasons (like easy compiler warning fixes), and avoided changing too much code. The more code you change in each single pull request, the more challenging it will be for Mr. zilmar to understand the safety and equivalence of that algorithm to the stability of the original one. If fixing/improve stability you should comment a lot about that in the PR and not use lazy commit names.

zilmar 13th January 2015 06:28 PM

I might commit it, I might not, it is not something easy to just say yes to, I need to be able spend some time and make sure every single line change is accurate.

if they all are and I have had the time to verify it then I can accept it, if one of them is wrong, then it will need updating, hopefully today I will get some time to better look at it.

HatCat 13th January 2015 06:47 PM

I believe the one who made that PR, LegendOfDragoon/AIO/RPGMaster, IIRC should have the time to try to reorganize that PR if it's not too inconvenient for him.

Open-source is tricky: It should be segmented into small, micro-steps solving micro-goals, to achieve one ultimate goal, kind of like coding itself. But then you have to weigh...even if the person is inexperienced, these are some very valuable changes that I might be missing out on if he doesn't feel like organizing them. But I wouldn't put a rush on merging it in its current condition.

HatCat 15th January 2015 02:52 PM

Code:

Bin/Inno Setup/Project64_Bundle.exe
deleted file mode 100644
Binary files a/Bin/Inno Setup/Project64_Bundle.exe and /dev/null differ

lul. First time I got the project64 repository from GitHub, and already Microsoft Security Essentials starts wiping the file just as I'm cloning it from https://github.com/project64/project64.git.

Well w/e, doesn't really matter if I'm just trying to get/build the EXE anyway since I lost the emulator.
To be honest I have never tried building before...I hope it's not hard and/or full of warnings. :o

[Edit] Nope, fails to load all the files in VS2010. Only the VS2008 makefile works. Guess I stick to the beta downloads page.

RPGMaster 15th January 2015 09:48 PM

I'll be more organized next time :D . Although I'm not sure when the next time I'll even submit anything. It depends how much zilmar cares about optimizing his RSP recompiler. Since I'm still going through my own code, I'm focusing mostly on accuracy atm, as well as studying RSP code in games a bit. One thing I'd like to fix is Rogue Squadron though.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator82 (Post 59034)
There´s a pull request on git
Is this tested & comes soon?

Your favorite game will run better now :D !
Quote:

Originally Posted by HatCat (Post 59090)
Code:

Bin/Inno Setup/Project64_Bundle.exe
deleted file mode 100644
Binary files a/Bin/Inno Setup/Project64_Bundle.exe and /dev/null differ

lul. First time I got the project64 repository from GitHub, and already Microsoft Security Essentials starts wiping the file just as I'm cloning it from https://github.com/project64/project64.git.

Well w/e, doesn't really matter if I'm just trying to get/build the EXE anyway since I lost the emulator.
To be honest I have never tried building before...I hope it's not hard and/or full of warnings. :o

[Edit] Nope, fails to load all the files in VS2010. Only the VS2008 makefile works. Guess I stick to the beta downloads page.

I think zilmar actually removed the ads from source, but I guess he didn't remove the binary stuff ;/ . Good reminder though as I recently had the same issue. I think I couldn't download with chrome browser.

It's a pain to compile, but like you, I found that v2008 makefile works. I was able to convert it to 2010 and compile with that. I can't compile the exe with 2013 though. The RSP is able to compile with 2013. I'm glad I kept 2010 :D . Idk why, but the exe is configured to have glide64 as a dependency. I think it's better to remove the dependency.

HatCat 15th January 2015 10:44 PM

"Idk why, but the exe is configured to have glide64 as a dependency. I think it's better to remove the dependency."

Hard to tell if as it turns out, I can't even compile the thing. The VS2008 makefile didn't compile successfully either, and there are too many warnings flooding the compiler output for me to analyze why it failed. The VS2010 makefile like you said...didn't work for you too??

So what, nobody cares if newer versions of Visual Studio can be used? Why?
Because older MSVC builds had faster run-time performance?
Because of CRT linkage/version of MSVCRT required?
Because of build file size?
Because of memory usage within the newer releases of the Visual Studio IDE?
All of those problems are amenable.

This is what I meant when I was arguing about portability with you earlier--it's not just Windows/Macintosh/Linux; it's other things like this--not being able to use the available versions of Visual Studio from Microsoft to compile the project, without converting some old makefile like from MSVC 2008. Things like inline asm aside--if something requires compiling in older versions of a compiler, and not newer versions, it is a hindrance to portability.

RPGMaster 16th January 2015 12:16 AM

Ya it's been kinda frustrating at times. There are quite a few emulators/plugins that I've never managed to compile ;/ .

I think zilmar never updated his MSVC version.

Sorry, I guess it's been a while since I've had to set up Pj64 exe's project settings. I cannot remember if I even solved these ATL/WTL problems on my own, or if I had to use someone else's fork. I'll try and review some of the forks & version's I've tried.

Would be nice if a lot of these n64 emulator/plugin projects were easier to compile :D . I noticed the default compiler settings are sub-optimal.

HatCat 16th January 2015 12:31 AM

Guess the best thing is take your word for it.

It's my first time trying to compile any N64 emulator really, unless you count RCP/plugins (which I think are still emulators :p).
The only other emulator I remember compiling was Mupen64 to help some other folk with patches / modernization.

Normally I'd say, try to contribute changes to fix these hundreds of compiler warnings I've been getting, but I'm not really in a position to do a pull request for something I cannot get to compile so that I can test my changes before pushing them. Nothing to make haste for though, got other stuff on my mind, other things to work on. Hope you guys have fun with this project though.

RPGMaster 16th January 2015 12:40 AM

Lool I was wrong about ads. He recently added new ones.

So how do I update my fork to include whatever commits zilmar adds?

Hopefully this project will get cleaned up soon :D . I'll try out deathdroid's and other's forks soon.

Waiting wouldn't be a bad idea for you, but I hope you do contribute in the future :D . Would be nice to support more compilers and get rid of warnings. I'm still struggling with mingw for general use.

HatCat 16th January 2015 12:40 AM

Uh. come to think of.

It might also have helped if the "project64" account had more than just one repository ("project64") on it--split up into a repository for the main CPU, for the RSP plugin, for Glide64, for N-Rage ... instead of associating one GitHub account with a all-in-one colossal repository. Individual repositories for each component of Project64 would make building easier...if someone failed to compile the RSP, they could still compile the core.

HatCat 16th January 2015 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59096)
Lool I was wrong about ads. He recently added new ones.

It's alright. I don't really pay attention to the ads. Wasn't complaining about ads, just that I can't pull from his repository without MSE auto-deleting files from the repository I just pulled. :p Just kinda makes it a bit weird, that's all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59096)
So how do I update my fork to include whatever commits zilmar ads?

Requires opening Git bash console ...
um, the only methods I know of are:
Code:

git clone https://github.com/project64/project64.git
or
Code:

cd project64
git pull

But I do the former because I'm a masochist and can't even remember whether the second one was correct/necessarily works every time anyway. You do need to use the latter git pull method however, if you've made one or more commits, and zilmar pushes something to the repo that conflicts with one of the commits you just made. Otherwise you'd have to delete your commit, git clone start over again, whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59096)
Waiting wouldn't be a bad idea for you, but I hope you do contribute in the future :D . Would be nice to support more compilers and get rid of warnings. I'm still struggling with mingw for general use.

It's not so much that I'm waiting since i'm already contributing to other things, but I'm mostly just attempting to help see some life going on here. I don't mean me contributing necessarily, just setting up a social circle to help out with this external thing which does not really relate to me, aside from me being registered on the site.

RPGMaster 16th January 2015 01:09 AM

Alright thanks for the information.

I managed to compile the exe with 2010 after compiling WTL, 7zip, Zlib, Common. I think the reason I struggled to even compile with 2010 was because I had it on 2013 for WTL. Newer versions of MSVC are a pain to compile WTL with I guess. Just from googling, I see many people having some of the same issues. I'm not even sure if any fork I've tried, was even able to compile PJ64.exe with 2013, but I haven't gotten around to re-testing forks I've used before. I still recommend removing Glide64 as a dependency because that thing is a pain to compile (I never managed to successfully compile it). Plus why force it to compile Glide64, when you only want to compile/debug PJ64.exe :D !

I agree with you that it's best to not have an all-in-one colossal repository. It was especially tricky when I first attempted compiling like a year ago. It's confusing because there are project settings inside of the RSP folder, for instance. Yet compiling won't work because it has other dependencies.

zilmar 16th January 2015 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59091)
I think zilmar actually removed the ads from source, but I guess he didn't remove the binary stuff ;/ . Good reminder though as I recently had the same issue. I think I couldn't download with chrome browser.

Yes removed the old ad code but did not remove the binary, sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59091)
It's a pain to compile, but like you, I found that v2008 makefile works. I was able to convert it to 2010 and compile with that. I can't compile the exe with 2013 though. The RSP is able to compile with 2013. I'm glad I kept 2010 :D . Idk why, but the exe is configured to have glide64 as a dependency. I think it's better to remove the dependency.

the dependency was just if I updated the plugin and then run the binary I wanted it to build those libraries. So it is just to force the compiler to build it.

I have access to Visual studio 2013, so I should see if I can see why it breaks. I use visual studio 2008 for compiling project64.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59091)
It depends how much zilmar cares about optimizing his RSP recompiler.

well technically it is jabo's compiler, I did the interrupter and the re compiler was partly based off my r4300 compiler, but most of the compiler in the RSP is jabo's work.

I mostly just focused on making the RSP interrupter as accurate as possible.

Since at the time we mostly just focused on audio though the rsp it was maybe not the most efficient re compiler. I am sure there is lots of things to make it even faster.

zilmar 16th January 2015 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59094)
Sorry, I guess it's been a while since I've had to set up Pj64 exe's project settings. I cannot remember if I even solved these ATL/WTL problems on my own, or if I had to use someone else's fork. I'll try and review some of the forks & version's I've tried.

Looks like WTL should be upgraded to version 9 for proper support in Visual studio 2013

RPGMaster 16th January 2015 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilmar (Post 59100)
Yes removed the old ad code but did not remove the binary, sorry.

np.
Quote:

Originally Posted by zilmar (Post 59100)
the dependency was just if I updated the plugin and then run the binary I wanted it to build those libraries. So it is just to force the compiler to build it.

Makes sense. It was weird how out of nowhere, i couldn't debug PJ64.exe with MSVC anymore, even though I was able to build it. I'll have to become more familiar with MSVC project options. Wouldn't have been a problem if I could compile PJGlide64. After removing the dependency, I was able to debug.
Quote:

Originally Posted by zilmar (Post 59100)
well technically it is jabo's compiler, I did the interrupter and the re compiler was partly based off my r4300 compiler, but most of the compiler in the RSP is jabo's work.

Oh ok. Wasn't sure how much, each of you did.
Quote:

Originally Posted by zilmar (Post 59100)
I mostly just focused on making the RSP interrupter as accurate as possible.

Since at the time we mostly just focused on audio though the rsp it was maybe not the most efficient re compiler. I am sure there is lots of things to make it even faster.

Ya I could tell audio was the primary focus. Aside from implementing all the incomplete instructions, vectorizing the flags & accumulators, upgrading to SSE2, and adding more game specific & opcode optimizations, make a huge difference.

I can help speed up the recompiler some more, but I hope to fix some of the bugs I've encountered first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilmar (Post 59101)
Looks like WTL should be upgraded to version 9 for proper support in Visual studio 2013

Good to hear :D . I honestly couldn't find a solution when googling.

Predator82 16th January 2015 12:40 PM

Comes a alpha/beta with the new things?

HatCat 19th January 2015 04:05 AM

zilmar can you explain the purpose of the VS2010 makefile project in the repository?
Should it just be removed or were you planning on having something complex done later for it to work?

I was trying to get it to work in the manner shown in this commit I did in a fork:
https://github.com/cxd4/project64/co...9ae911e6d6addf

I was hoping this would fix the errors in Visual Studio 2010...it did, but it just recognizes it as a project that "needs to be converted". So I go through the conversion wizard, finish the conversion, close, re-open VS2010, re-open the file I just converted...it recursively says once again that it needs to be converted even though the converted .vcxproj files are already there.

So I guess getting it to work isn't that simple. Were you planning on having the genuine .vcxproj file counterparts to your .vcproj files in the future of the repo, or do you think the availability of the MSVC 2010 project is misleading, no different than the config in the 2008 one and should just be removed?

oddMLan 19th January 2015 04:39 AM

Did Visual Studio 2010 generate a new .sln file after conversion? Maybe is still using the old .vcproj references you changed in first place, creating the "needs to be converted" loop.

Tarek701 19th January 2015 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatCat (Post 59153)
zilmar can you explain the purpose of the VS2010 makefile project in the repository?
Should it just be removed or were you planning on having something complex done later for it to work?

I was trying to get it to work in the manner shown in this commit I did in a fork:
https://github.com/cxd4/project64/co...9ae911e6d6addf

I was hoping this would fix the errors in Visual Studio 2010...it did, but it just recognizes it as a project that "needs to be converted". So I go through the conversion wizard, finish the conversion, close, re-open VS2010, re-open the file I just converted...it recursively says once again that it needs to be converted even though the converted .vcxproj files are already there.

So I guess getting it to work isn't that simple. Were you planning on having the genuine .vcxproj file counterparts to your .vcproj files in the future of the repo, or do you think the availability of the MSVC 2010 project is misleading, no different than the config in the 2008 one and should just be removed?

Well, I never used the VS2010 solution. When I did, it gave me billions of errors in VS2010. So, I always used the vs2008 solution on Visual Studio 2010 and it always worked.

HatCat 19th January 2015 02:40 PM

If nobody was able to get the VS2010 file working, then its presence only wastes peoples' time redundantly.

It should either be removed or zilmar should explain how it can be fixed. Otherwise it's there for impressions and just makes things hard.

I don't even have VS2008 anymore, or know how to get it. oddMLan no it created no new files/SLN other than vcxproj's.

=X= Smasherx74 =X= 19th January 2015 04:18 PM

I have only looked through the main part of the source and I'm wondering if this is still 2.0 or if it has the 2.1 updates. I know the source says from 2 years ago, but that source was taken right after it got published, and now it's back again so I can only assume it has the newest faulty modifications you made right?

I wish the community would bash zilmar a little bit more, he really deserves it.

HatCat 19th January 2015 04:52 PM

It's the latest source I think so yeah, 2.1 whatever.
And there are rumors of 1.7 source but until anyone even sees an example that's just a marketing claim.

I don't care about bashing him and I don't care about asking nicely. Right now I only want to know if we should give up on the VS2010 makefile and find some method of obtaining VS2008 or if there was some planned method of fixing it--or else why would it still be in the repo?

RPGMaster 19th January 2015 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =X= Smasherx74 =X= (Post 59160)
I have only looked through the main part of the source and I'm wondering if this is still 2.0 or if it has the 2.1 updates. I know the source says from 2 years ago, but that source was taken right after it got published, and now it's back again so I can only assume it has the newest faulty modifications you made right?

I wish the community would bash zilmar a little bit more, he really deserves it.

The source is the latest version. For what reason should the community bash zilmar?
Quote:

Originally Posted by HatCat (Post 59161)
It's the latest source I think so yeah, 2.1 whatever.
And there are rumors of 1.7 source but until anyone even sees an example that's just a marketing claim.

I don't care about bashing him and I don't care about asking nicely. Right now I only want to know if we should give up on the VS2010 makefile and find some method of obtaining VS2008 or if there was some planned method of fixing it--or else why would it still be in the repo?

While it's true that the 2010 makefile is a waste of time, you can convert the 2008 makefile to 2010. Still can't use 2013, until zilmar upgrades stuff like WTL.

Well the source for 1.7 certainly exists, but I've never successfully compiled a working version. I might need to use 2008 just to get the version I want, to compile ;/ . I honestly only care about it for the debugger, and possibly other neat features.

HatCat 19th January 2015 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMaster (Post 59162)
While it's true that the 2010 makefile is a waste of time, you can convert the 2008 makefile to 2010. Still can't use 2013, until zilmar upgrades stuff like WTL.

I pose no claim that the 2010 makefile is a waste of time; I'm asking if it's a waste of time.

You may agree with me on the possibility that it is, but it's not possible to make a pull request removing the 2010 makefile if zilmar doesn't think it's a waste of time, and it's not possible to make a pull request fixing the 2010 makefile to work if zilmar DOES think it's a waste of time. I just want to know why keep it in the repository--should we be fixing it, or removing it?

I'm not worried about 2013; I have VS2010 still installed and can just use that.

zilmar 19th January 2015 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =X= Smasherx74 =X= (Post 59160)
I wish the community would bash zilmar a little bit more, he really deserves it.

What in particular do you want to bash me on? why do you think I deserve it?

retroben 19th January 2015 09:17 PM

I'd guess they'd bash you for allowing malware/adware/etc. to ship with the installer for those unfortunate enough to click the wrong option and have it installed on their system. :eek:

That is a really bad and shameful issue. :(

You should make sure to entirely remove ALL of the malicious content shipped with the installer if not done so already,they might forgive you too.

zilmar 19th January 2015 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatCat (Post 59153)
zilmar can you explain the purpose of the VS2010 makefile project in the repository?
Should it just be removed or were you planning on having something complex done later for it to work?

It was added for another developer, but yes it is not maintained. Actually he upgraded the original solution, so I renamed it to visual studio 2010, then put my original solution back with vs2008. So mine did not get overwritten again.

If you want to fix it you should be able to copy the visual studio 2008 one then just edit the file and change:
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 10.00

to
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 11.00

HatCat 19th January 2015 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilmar (Post 59166)
If you want to fix it you should be able to copy the visual studio 2008 one then just edit the file and change:
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 10.00

to
Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 11.00

Just tested -- doesn't work.

I deleted 2010,
copied 2008,
renamed 2008 to 2010
edited "Version 10.00" to "Version 11.00" just like you said.

What happens is VS2010 immediately says it needs to be converted to a 2010 style project.

It's the same as before when I edited your 2010 makefile and replaced all the ".vcxproj" file extensions with ".vcproj" in a text editor--it just recursively keeps on saying that the 2010 project needs to be converted to a 2010 project, until I resign to setting them to look for the ".vcxproj" extension instead.

I fear that Visual Studio 2010 is designed to recognize any project file, no matter what version, which attempts to look for files of *.vcproj extension, automatically as outdated...your only solution might be to delete the VS2010 makefile and just forget about it, or start maintaining .vcxproj files alongside the .vcproj ones in your repo.

Well...which is the lesser evil?

deathdroid 19th January 2015 10:00 PM

Just getting to stick my beak in here, Projects 64 builds fine off of Visual Studio 2013. Mind you that's off my own repo but I cant remember having to change anything to get it to build under it. (Though i did remove glide and nrage from the build process, no point if your interest is only in the emulator.)

RPGMaster 19th January 2015 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HatCat (Post 59163)
I pose no claim that the 2010 makefile is a waste of time; I'm asking if it's a waste of time.

You may agree with me on the possibility that it is, but it's not possible to make a pull request removing the 2010 makefile if zilmar doesn't think it's a waste of time, and it's not possible to make a pull request fixing the 2010 makefile to work if zilmar DOES think it's a waste of time. I just want to know why keep it in the repository--should we be fixing it, or removing it?

Rofl, oops :p . Well it definitely needs fixing :D . Have you tried just running the 2008 makefile? Me and Tarek got it working by doing that. It should automatically convert the 2008 one to 2010 (if you opened the 2008 sln file in MSVC 2010).

HatCat 20th January 2015 01:14 AM

k, just to make sure I checked for an alternative option--for the hell of it i tried renaming all the .vcproj files to .vcxproj extension and then loading 2010 project, that didn't work out any better than just changing the version number of the 2008 file. Either way, MS seems determined to make having portable VS2008 files a pain in the ass, and it seems like the presence of that 2010 .sln file may need to be ignored entirely or deleted from the repository.

Well at least now that I have an explanation of what's up with the confusion behind that at least I can breathe easier about the 2010 thing and leave it alone for now I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by =X= Smasherx74 =X= (Post 59160)
I wish the community would bash zilmar a little bit more, he really deserves it.

And here's just what personally I think about your idea: For the past 8 years, he's been getting bashed hundreds of times by hundreds of people, due to loads of things including but not limited to the donation system and the ads replacing it. Doesn't exactly phase him very much from what I've seen after all those years of him getting flamed over all of that kind of shit, so if it doesn't change anything at all about him or even provoke any reactions beyond him having curiosity of why they're mad, let's say you get your wish granted--everybody in the community flames him. If it never changed anything to begin with, how can you even tell it was granted?

HatCat 20th January 2015 03:29 AM

http://ft.trillian.im/785abe041074fd...ny8QwVUWUv.jpg
http://ft.trillian.im/785abe041074fd...BO8z8HYaMg.jpg
http://ft.trillian.im/785abe041074fd...lpwtTh9SwQ.jpg
http://ft.trillian.im/785abe041074fd...Wczbci8tyH.jpg

See even if I install VS 2008 it still gives me shit if I try to build.

All the other stuff loaded though. I could always try to do blind commits like warning fixes (those are seriously spamming my output window), but it helps to verify the solidity of my changes by actually running the result. >.>

And yeah, I tried just opening the 2008 project in 2010. It succeeds in building some of them, but fails to link 3 of them...here's the compiler log I had in VS2010 when trying to build Project64 just using that.
https://gist.github.com/cxd4/a0bbbabf9d2623c1a2b4

Honestly, I'd rather just use Visual Studio 2008 like zilmar is using to minimize the discrepancies/possible miscommunications when trying to attempt changes. But I guess VS Express != VS and I don't know the first thing about what the hell Microsoft means by express anyway.

oddMLan 20th January 2015 10:49 AM

Seems like the solution folders aren't supported in the Express versions of Visual Studio.
http://www.garrypassarella.co.uk/201...-this-version/

=X= Smasherx74 =X= 20th January 2015 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilmar (Post 59164)
What in particular do you want to bash me on? why do you think I deserve it?

I would like to bash HLE in 2015, maybe Jabo's plugins, and I'd like to bash whoever designed Glide64 for PJ64, because it's definitely faster than the original glide64 final version. But it's designed specifically for PJ64 2.x and I can only assume by that, it uses the rsp 1.7. Id be really nice to use it with Haxatard's emulator. Specifically for Zelda, because on 2.1 using Glide64 for PJ64 it magically it doesn't lag at all, even when you are BombHovering while facing an open world like clocktown with characters and objects all over the place.

As zilmar the great creator of the legendary audio plugin, I think it's only right for people to bash you since you are the creator of the mainstream (not so much anymore lol) emulator. You have an obligation to this emulator, it should be a higher priority than your social life.

Also you have no idea how much rage and anger boils inside of me when I see people using Bizhawks not realizing it's just a Mupen64plus gui. Why can't you just make PJ64 2.x acceptable by ZSR or SRL.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.