What's the best NES clone?....

[goldenegg]

I got a clone and was pretty disappointed.

 

My theory is that if anyone can produce a clone with 100% compatibility with HD (S-video, RGB) output....a lot of people would buy them.

 

I'd pay $200 dollars for that in a heartbeat.

 

I'm kinda fixated on image quality so I'm considering buying a Playchoice 10 PPU.

 

Take MagitekAngel's suggestion and get yourself a Wii. Takes all of 10min to soft mod it and you can get fantastic emulation for many systems. It's not HD, but neither is the s-video connection you listed

 

A lot of people kid themselves that somehow using clone hardware is better than emulation. Fact is, clone hardware is a form of emulation itself. The NES emulator on the Wii is pretty much perfect in every regard. It blows all clones out of the water.

[LidLikesIntellivision]

Another solution would be the old and good PC Emulation with original controllers connected by the awesome (but expensive) bliss-box .

[Thrillo]

Although I've never used them, I figure that the best clones are those late '80s-early '90s Taiwanese and Russian models which have chipsets that are 1:1 copies of the real deal. Too bad they're kinda difficult to find.

[Rex Dart]

Blinking screen?

 

He didn't need to mention it, as anyone with a NES knows that's the most likely outcome when a cart doesn't read properly. I assumed that when you disable the chip, all it will do is give you a solid color screen instead (grey, pink, black, or whatever it's feeling at the moment).

 

Trust me, the cart connection & lockout chip go hand-in-hand in producing that flashing screen. The lockout chip is the pickiest bit of the system; the rest of the system can survive the little momentary lapses that cause that stupid chip to ruin your game.

[goldenegg]

Although I've never used them, I figure that the best clones are those late '80s-early '90s Taiwanese and Russian models which have chipsets that are 1:1 copies of the real deal. Too bad they're kinda difficult to find.

 

'Difficult to find' is an understatement. I'm currently trying to track one down and am having a hell of a time doing so.

[Thrillo]

Although I've never used them, I figure that the best clones are those late '80s-early '90s Taiwanese and Russian models which have chipsets that are 1:1 copies of the real deal. Too bad they're kinda difficult to find.

 

'Difficult to find' is an understatement. I'm currently trying to track one down and am having a hell of a time doing so.

Haha, very true. The closest I've come is finding a Russian Dendy controller at a flea market years ago; the actual console was nowhere to be found

[genesisguy]

Don't replace your pin connectors. The replacements are worse than a refurbished original.

Here's the info on pin bending. http://www.raphnet.net/electronique/nes_mod/fixnes.txt

I broke one pin connector trying this. You don't need to bend them very much. Also scrub the hell out of it with a tooth brush soaked in alcohol. Once you get good at this I feel its a better alternative to the new replacement connectors.

 

I got lucky and found a NES in the wild that fires up 95% percent of the time on the original pin connnector. It has absolutely no tight grip on the carts either. I don't know how I lucked out. My lock out chip is still enabled.

 

When my magical pin connector finally starts to fail I'm going to try the boiling method. It sounds silly but most of the people who have tried it claim it works wonders.

http://nintendoage.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=63483

[goldenegg]

Don't replace your pin connectors. The replacements are worse than a refurbished original.

 

I have to disagree here. I replaced the connector on my primary NES nearly 7 years ago and it still works perfectly. My original never lasted that long. Some people don't like the replacements because they don't feel like the original, but that doesn't mean they're worse.

[+wood_jl]

Don't replace your pin connectors. The replacements are worse than a refurbished original.

 

I have to disagree here. I replaced the connector on my primary NES nearly 7 years ago and it still works perfectly. My original never lasted that long. Some people don't like the replacements because they don't feel like the original, but that doesn't mean they're worse.

 

Similar experience.

It hasn't been 7 years for me, but I replaced my 72-pin connector with an ebay el-cheapo and it has been working great for probably 2-3 years, anyway.

 

I'm wondering what all the fuss is about the replacement connectors sucking. I don't see how they can suck worse than the original - which definitely sucks, or this would never have been an issue to begin with. Time will tell. Perhaps I should throw a couple spare el-cheapos in the vault.

[Rex Dart]

I don't see how they can suck worse than the original

 

Alright, but it's entirely possible for a reproduction to suck worse than an original.

[Austin]

I don't see how they can suck worse than the original

 

Alright, but it's entirely possible for a reproduction to suck worse than an original.

 

Mine does, ha.

[genesisguy]

My elcheapo eBay replacement connector had such a tight death gripe on my carts I thought there's no way I'm gonna subject these old carts to this type of abuse. Also it wasn't a 100% thing still didn't work any better than a refurbed original.

 

There are some lengthy threads over at nintendoage discussing the cheapness of the replacement connectors. Might also be a luck of the draw whether or not you get a good one.

[+wood_jl]

I jammed a "PowerPak" into my el-cheapo 72-pin connector and hardly ever remove it. Pehaps that's why I don't have problems?

[genesisguy]

I jammed a "PowerPak" into my el-cheapo 72-pin connector and hardly ever remove it. Pehaps that's why I don't have problems?

 

Hmm. Maybe a NES with a new connector and a powerpak jammed into is the best way to go.

[Reaperman]

I can't quantify why, but I have never been able to do NES soft emulation (e.g. wii). I'll always take hardware clones despite their audio/video imperfections, at a base level they get something right. I can't play Super C under software emulation to save my life. I die in level one or two. Somehow under hardware emulation, my hands still know the way to level 8+.

 

It always seems to be in my hands, no matter what my mind knows is coming, and I fully accept that what I'm stating is impossible and wrong, but it's my experience. Software emulation looks and sounds better, but that's it.

 

Even with clones available, I tend to lean toward the toaster (though my FC mobile II helps me in the can). My personal toasters both have disabled 10nes chips and personally referbed, oldschool connectors. I remove the connector, clean both sides, bend them to force contact with carts (deathgrip) and don't bother to lock them in the down position. The biggest advantage to real hardware has to be the powerpak. There are so many great games that only it can help me experience (or a huge collection of 'repros', I suppose)

Edited July 2, 2012 by Reaperman

[godslabrat]

A lot of people kid themselves that somehow using clone hardware is better than emulation. Fact is, clone hardware is a form of emulation itself.

 

I'm having trouble with this concept. I can see a distinction between having non-native hardware mimic the original console, and attempting to re-create the original hardware, albeit more cheaply and imperfectly. I'm not a huge fan of clones, but I can't see calling them "a form of emulation" to be accurate at all.

[goldenegg]

Anything which doesn't use the original hardware is emulating the original, pure and simple. Current clones use SoCs, which try to replicate functionality of the original consoles. That's exactly what software based emulators try to do.

[StoneAgeGamer]

Anything which doesn't use the original hardware is emulating the original, pure and simple. Current clones use SoCs, which try to replicate functionality of the original consoles. That's exactly what software based emulators try to do.

 

Maybe so, but for the clones coming out of China right now the ones that using "on-a-chip" seem to do a much better job than the clones that use software emulation like the AtGame Firecore line of systems.

[+Gemintronic]

There are machines that straight up emulate hardware and then there are reverse engineered systems that ARE the system - just a different variation. There is no one true Nintendo: Licensed developers where required to test their games against multiple revisions of the NES. NOAC (Nintendo-on-a-chip) systems can be considered yet another revision of true Nintendo hardware.

[goldenegg]

Anything which doesn't use the original hardware is emulating the original, pure and simple. Current clones use SoCs, which try to replicate functionality of the original consoles. That's exactly what software based emulators try to do.

 

Maybe so, but for the clones coming out of China right now the ones that using "on-a-chip" seem to do a much better job than the clones that use software emulation like the AtGame Firecore line of systems.

 

No disagreement there. I'm wasn't trying to say that all software emulation is better. There's just no denying that PC based emulation, as well as those on decently powered consoles, is better than current clones. The one advantage clones provide is the ability to use original carts. That advantage is starting to fade with the availability of the Retrode.

 

There are machines that straight up emulate hardware and then there are reverse engineered systems that ARE the system - just a different variation. There is no one true Nintendo: Licensed developers where required to test their games against multiple revisions of the NES. NOAC (Nintendo-on-a-chip) systems can be considered yet another revision of true Nintendo hardware.

 

I don't agree with this.

 

There is definitely a 'true' NES. It's the systems built with the same hardware as the original. Anything which uses different components is simply attempting to emulate the original. Whether or not reverse engineering is used is inconsequential. Reverse engineering is used for software emulators as well. In your definition, that would make them 'true' systems.

[yell0w_lantern]

As the term is typically used for video games, "emulation" is using software to mimic machine X on machine Y. A Retro Duo or Retron 3 is hardware not software running within another OS. You would be more accurate to say that coffee and Earl Grey are both kinds of tea.

[goldenegg]

As the term is typically used for video games, "emulation" is using software to mimic machine X on machine Y. A Retro Duo or Retron 3 is hardware not software running within another OS. You would be more accurate to say that coffee and Earl Grey are both kinds of tea.

 

You can't confuse coffee as being tea, as the definition of tea is quite specific "A hot drink made by infusing the dried, crushed leaves of the tea plant in boiling water".

 

The word emulation comes from the term emulate, which means "imitate the function of (another system), as by modifying the hardware or the software". Just because it has primarily been applied to software in the past doesn't mean it can't be applied to hardware. You're looking to impose limits on a term where none exist.

 

I'm not quite certain why you believe you need an existing OS in order for emulation to be taking place. Any act of mimicking the behaviour of the original system is an act of emulation, regardless of how it's accomplished.

 

Edit:

 

Here's a Wikipedia article which specifically addresses the emulation of hardware with other hardware. It specifically separates itself from emulation through software:

 

http://en.wikipedia....dware_emulation

[yell0w_lantern]

As the term is typically used for video games, "emulation" is using software to mimic machine X on machine Y. A Retro Duo or Retron 3 is hardware not software running within another OS. You would be more accurate to say that coffee and Earl Grey are both kinds of tea.

 

You can't confuse coffee as being tea, as the definition of tea is quite specific "A hot drink made by infusing the dried, crushed leaves of the tea plant in boiling water".

 

The word emulation comes from the term emulate, which means "imitate the function of (another system), as by modifying the hardware or the software". Just because it has primarily been applied to software in the past doesn't mean it can't be applied to hardware. You're looking to impose limits on a term where none exist.

 

I'm not quite certain why you believe you need an existing OS in order for emulation to be taking place. Any act of mimicking the behaviour of the original system is an act of emulation, regardless of how it's accomplished.

 

Edit:

 

Here's a Wikipedia article which specifically addresses the emulation of hardware with other hardware. It specifically separates itself from emulation through software:

 

http://en.wikipedia....dware_emulation

 

Are you suggesting that ginger tea is made from leaves?

Edited July 4, 2012 by yell0w_lantern

[goldenegg]

Are you suggesting that ginger tea is made from leaves?

 

Talk about a tangent ... Ginger tea doesn't fall under the basic category of tea. It's in the separate category of herbal tea, which isn't truly a tea but a infusion.

[onmode-ky]

The word emulation comes from the term emulate, which means "imitate the function of (another system), as by modifying the hardware or the software". Just because it has primarily been applied to software in the past doesn't mean it can't be applied to hardware. You're looking to impose limits on a term where none exist.

 

I'm not quite certain why you believe you need an existing OS in order for emulation to be taking place. Any act of mimicking the behaviour of the original system is an act of emulation, regardless of how it's accomplished.

 

You are correct if you are choosing to use the general English word "emulation" in this context. However, the computing term "emulation" is more restrictive. It refers to running program code of a given instruction set on hardware of a different instruction set. If you look at the Wikipedia link you provided,

 

http://en.wikipedia....dware_emulation

 

hardware emulation is described as most often being used to test and debug a new, in-progress hardware system on an existing hardware system (possibly custom-assembled to provide that functionality, but nonetheless not the actual new system). That existing hardware system does not natively run the test-target instructions; the key point of "emulation" as a technical computing term is that there is translation going on, either in software or hardware, to convert the target instructions to the host hardware's native language.

 

In the case of NES clone hardware, there is no second hardware system involved, no translation. The clone hardware is meant to directly run the NES program code, albeit not necessarily with 100% accuracy due to the possibility of differences in implementation. Thus, the clone is not an example of hardware emulation.

 

That said, it is still correct to say that both software emulation and clone hardware have the possibility of having errors in reproducing the behavior of the original NES. Just as an emulator program can mistranslate an instruction, so too can clone hardware incorrectly run an instruction. Whether an emulator is more accurate or a clone is more accurate relies entirely on the particular designs involved, rather than on the concepts of emulation versus clones.

 

I'm sorry, I tried to contribute to this discussion, but I feel like all I did was do some hand-waving and say, "It could go either way."

 

onmode-ky