Why is the real hardware better than emulation?

[JB]

I like the hardware because everything is exactly the way it is suppose to be; plus you have cool stuff.

HOORAY! STUFF!

 

- Classic consoles boot up instantly; PC's do not.

Mine's usually running anyways.

 

- You never have to mess around with stuff trying to figure out which key is assigned to what function. For example, the difficulty switch on an Atari is simply, the difficulty switch; it is not hidden in a menu somewhere or assigned to some random key on a keyboard.

On the other hand, you have to flip the game switch, or hook the system up.

 

 

- Classic games are low resolution; classic TV's are low resolution and can display the games' resolution natively and fullscreen, while keeping the overscan areas of the game right where they are supposed to be; i.e. offscreen; they are a perfect match and the one was specifically designed to work with the other.

TV overscan area varies quite a bit. You will never find a set that exactly matches the overscan assumed by a given software title.

 

 

Plus, the PC monitor's high resolution capabilities make edges which appear smooth on a TV, look sharp and jagged.

That's the fault of the connector more than anything, if you have a good TV.

Move to s-video, and things get a lot sharper.

...

Which benefits some games, and detracts from others.

 

Plus, where are the scan lines?

Well, they're usually emulated as an option. And if you see them on the TV, you're usually sitting too close(I don't see them).

 

 

 

BTW, Coke and Pepsi taste nothing alike.

Darn skippy!

[MaximRecoil]

On the other hand, you have to flip the game switch, or hook the system up.

Not necessarily; well, there is always at least a one time "hook the system up". I haven't used a "game switch" on any system since about 1985.

TV overscan area varies quite a bit. You will never find a set that exactly matches the overscan assumed by a given software title.

The programmers assume a range anyway; not a precise figure; neither is a precise figure necessary. A PC monitor shows everything, which was clearly not intended.

That's the fault of the connector more than anything, if you have a good TV.

Move to s-video, and things get a lot sharper.

Not at all. Play Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter II (or any arcade game you care to play) in the arcade, then play it in MAME on your PC. The difference is huge in terms of the noticeable stair-stepping and whatnot. The arcade monitors which are typically standard TV's minus a tuner + a different chassis, in an arcade machine display a picture with much smoother edges along with a lot other qualities that are hard to put into words, scanlines being one of them. The difference is not in the connector since both a PC monitor and arcade machine monitors use RGB+H/V sync connections for the video signal, which is far better than S-video. PC monitors simply have far too fine of a pitch to make low resolution games look right.

Well, they're usually emulated as an option. And if you see them on the TV, you're usually sitting too close(I don't see them).

They are part of the overall effect, whether you are close enough to make them out or not. Emulated scanlines look bad IMO. Edited July 29, 2005 by MaximRecoil

[JB]

On the other hand, you have to flip the game switch, or hook the system up.

Not necessarily; well, there is always at least a one time "hook the system up". I haven't used a "game switch" on any system since about 1985.

*shrugs*

 

TV overscan area varies quite a bit. You will never find a set that exactly matches the overscan assumed by a given software title.

The programmers assume a range anyway; not a precise figure; neither is a precise figure necessary. A PC monitor shows everything, which was clearly not intended.

On some systems(anything post-NES), it is.

 

On the NES, it is on some games, but not on others. And any NES emulator worth using features the option to discard the first and last row of tiles.

 

 

Personally, I've never had an emulator that showed garbage, nor one that cropped the gameplay area. All 3 of my TVs do at least one of the above.

 

That's the fault of the connector more than anything, if you have a good TV.

Move to s-video, and things get a lot sharper.

Not at all. Play Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter II (or any arcade game you care to play) in the arcade, then play it in MAME on your PC. The difference is huge in terms of the noticeable stair-stepping and whatnot. The arcade monitors which are typically standard TV's minus a tuner + a different chassis, in an arcade machine display a picture with much smoother edges along with a lot other qualities that are hard to put into words, scanlines being one of them. The difference is not in the connector since both a PC monitor and arcade machine monitors use RGB+H/V sync connections for the video signal, which is far better than S-video. PC monitors simply have far too fine of a pitch to make low resolution games look right.

We're discussing arcades now?

 

Personally, I've never had a problem with the sharper display.

I quite like it in most circumstances, and the ones I don't like(usually due to excessive checkerboard shading/transparency) are easy enough to remedy with the cheap blur filter that's standard issue in most emulators(I only play PS1 games through composite video for this reason, even though I have an s-video cable).

 

Scanlines are emulated even better than poorly-focused CRTs, but they suck either way.

 

And if we go for REAL authenticism, we need to force a few random arcade games to have wonky brightness settings, magnetized monitors, and flaky controls.

 

Well, they're usually emulated as an option. And if you see them on the TV, you're usually sitting too close(I don't see them).

They are part of the overall effect, whether you are close enough to make them out or not. Emulated scanlines look bad IMO.

If you can't see the scanlines, they're meaningless.

And emulated scanlines look pretty darn realistic, if you don't use 100% black ones(well, actually, the scanlines on my nice 32" are solid black when they rear their ugly head) .

I found 25% worked quite nicely to simulate sitting too close to the TV back when I used them.

[MaximRecoil]

We're discussing arcades now?

I brought up arcade machines because they use a standard TV tube, but have the same fundamental connection (RGB) as a PC does to its monitor. You blamed the "jaggies" on the connection, rather than the PC monitor. I used an apples to apples comparison; i.e. same connection but TV vs PC to show that this was wrong.

If you can't see the scanlines, they're meaningless.

Like I said, the scanlines are part of the whole effect. It is the reason that the prominent scanlines are there; which makes the picture look so much different; i.e. the lack of the fine pitch of a PC monitor.

 

I've tried many fake scanlines and I always end up shutting them off. Some of the RGB triad settings in MAME look OK but it just doesn't look like a TV/Arcade monitor.

 

Like I said, the best way to see the difference is to compare an emulator on a PC monitor to the same game in the arcade. The RGB connections are the same but the arcade looks so much better. This is even possible to do with certain console games, such as Nintendo's PC10 and VS. hardware running slightly modified NES console games through RGB into an arcade monitor (TV).

[JB]

We're discussing arcades now?

I brought up arcade machines because they use a standard TV tube, but have the same fundamental connection (RGB) as a PC does to its monitor. You blamed the "jaggies" on the connection, rather than the PC monitor. I used an apples to apples comparison; i.e. same connection but TV vs PC to show that this was wrong.

An s-video feed to my "good" TV still gets me an image that's about 95% as sharp as a VGA monitor.

 

If you can't see the scanlines, they're meaningless.

Like I said, the scanlines are part of the whole effect. It is the reason that the prominent scanlines are there; which makes the picture look so much different; i.e. the lack of the fine pitch of a PC monitor.

If I recall, it has more to do with the fact that the TV isn't getting enough rows of resolution than it does with the sharpness of the screen.

 

Sidenote: I can see scanlines on my VGA monitors at 640*480.

 

I've tried many fake scanlines and I always end up shutting them off. Some of the RGB triad settings in MAME look OK but it just doesn't look like a TV/Arcade monitor.

I laid off the scanline emulation ages ago, too.

Used to like them, but not for some time now.

 

I've never run through all the image filter options in MAME. Too much of a pain to exit the game, change the configuration, restart, and start playing again just to see if I like the effect.

 

Like I said, the best way to see the difference is to compare an emulator on a PC monitor to the same game in the arcade. The RGB connections are the same but the arcade looks so much better. This is even possible to do with certain console games, such as Nintendo's PC10 and VS. hardware running slightly modified NES console games through RGB into an arcade monitor (TV).

Heh.

PlayChoice 10 and Vs System are funny examples, as the NES generates chroma and luma signals internally. Their "native" display signal is s-video, and it's being converted to RGB on the board in exactly the same way it would if you ran the s-video signals into a TV. All comes down to who has the better comb filter(of course, as a stock NES tops out at composite video, the arcade boards start with an advantage, since there's only one filter instead of 2).

 

Anyways, as I said before, I have a dim view of arcade monitor quality. I'm sure a fresh and properly tuned screen kicks ass, but I don't see a lot of arcade operators taking the time to tune them properly.

 

I'll compare to the nice 32" TV in the living room. Give it a good signal and the picture is almost as sharp as a computer monitor(sharper than one if you're using the wrong emu settings).

Which CAN be a disadvantage, though I've only really seen it to be so on my Playstation.

[MaximRecoil]

Heh.

PlayChoice 10 and Vs System are funny examples, as the NES generates chroma and luma signals internally. Their "native" display signal is s-video, and it's being converted to RGB on the board in exactly the same way it would if you ran the s-video signals into a TV. All comes down to who has the better comb filter(of course, as a stock NES tops out at composite video, the arcade boards start with an advantage, since there's only one filter instead of 2).

The PC10 and VS. hardware used different GPU's than the NES, with different color pallettes and they did output RGB, rather than composite like the stock NES units:

 

* NTSC version, named RP2C02, runs at 5.37MHz and outputs composite video

* PAL version, named RP2C07, runs at 5.32MHz and outputs composite video

* PlayChoice-10 version, named RP2C03, runs at 5.37MHz and outputs RGB video (at NTSC frequencies)

* Nintendo Vs. Series versions, named RP2C04 and RP2C05, run at 5.37MHz and output RGB video (at NTSC frequencies) using irregular palettes

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/nintendo-entertainment-system

Edited July 29, 2005 by MaximRecoil

[Shannon]

I believe that the pixels on a TV are differently shaped than a monitors. So in addition to scan lines you have that problem as well. Plus certain colors may look perfectly fine on a monitor, but not so great on NTSC due to it's limitations.

 

Personally I find scan lines annoying.

 

Better looking is subjective though. More accurate looking would probably be a more "accurate" word to use.

Edited July 29, 2005 by Shannon

[JB]

Heh.

PlayChoice 10 and Vs System are funny examples, as the NES generates chroma and luma signals internally. Their "native" display signal is s-video, and it's being converted to RGB on the board in exactly the same way it would if you ran the s-video signals into a TV. All comes down to who has the better comb filter(of course, as a stock NES tops out at composite video, the arcade boards start with an advantage, since there's only one filter instead of 2).

The PC10 and VS. hardware used different GPU's than the NES, with different color pallettes and they did output RGB, rather than composite like the stock NES units:

 

* NTSC version, named RP2C02, runs at 5.37MHz and outputs composite video

* PAL version, named RP2C07, runs at 5.32MHz and outputs composite video

* PlayChoice-10 version, named RP2C03, runs at 5.37MHz and outputs RGB video (at NTSC frequencies)

* Nintendo Vs. Series versions, named RP2C04 and RP2C05, run at 5.37MHz and output RGB video (at NTSC frequencies) using irregular palettes

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/nintendo-entertainment-system

900673[/snapback]

You apparently don't understand me.

I'm not talking about outputs. I'm talking about the internally generated signals.

 

The NES simply DOES NOT WORK WITH RGB.

It works with chroma and luma signals. Its native video format is s-video, regardless of what format you get out of the chip.

 

The ONLY way to get RGB signals in ANY variant of the NES PPU is to run the chroma and luma signals through a filter to construct RGB signals. It's what a TV does when fed s-video, and it's what the PC10/Vs System chips are doing between the PPU and the RGB leads.

 

Composite video is a bit easier. You just tie the chroma and luma signals together.

 

I believe that the pixels on a TV are differently shaped than a monitors.  So in addition to scan lines you have that problem as well.

Varies from system to system, actually. Your more modern systems use nice normal 320*240 and 640*480 displays.

Older stuff has wierd off-the-wall res'es like 256*224.

 

Amusingly enough, jacking the resolution way the hell up, while seemingly absurd for a low-res source, does a lot for the scaling artifacts generated in aspect correction as it provides for smaller intermediate pixels.

 

Plus certain colors may look perfectly fine on a monitor, but not so great on NTSC due to it's limitations.

Which is more an argument for testing homebrew software and hacks on original hardware than it is against playing original games in emulators, really.

 

Of course, there are places where TV quirks can bite the emulator, such as artifact-based coloring(7800 Tower toppler being a fine example, unless someone's emulating the artifacting for the 7800 now. Of course that's broken in an s-video-modded 7800 too...).

 

Better looking is subjective though.  More accurate looking would probably be a more "accurate" word to use. 

Heh.

 

Of course, the MOST accurate display would be to take the frame buffer and and dump it straight into the brain... to heck with all these vague display technologies.

[TheRedEye]

That's why I am a big fan of emulation, and I'm also a big fan of classic hardware. That's also why, if I ever hit the lottery, I will make sure that my emulation is 100% legal, even if it means amassing a monstrous collection of original software and arcade cabs. I will also build a 100% legal MAME cab, with the original machines kept in a nice climate-controlled warehouse (thus, I can even charge for use of the MAME cab, since I'm not using my originals and the emulated copies at the same time).

879812[/snapback]

 

This has to be the worst use of an imaginary fortune I've ever heard.

[JB]

That's why I am a big fan of emulation, and I'm also a big fan of classic hardware. That's also why, if I ever hit the lottery, I will make sure that my emulation is 100% legal, even if it means amassing a monstrous collection of original software and arcade cabs. I will also build a 100% legal MAME cab, with the original machines kept in a nice climate-controlled warehouse (thus, I can even charge for use of the MAME cab, since I'm not using my originals and the emulated copies at the same time).

879812[/snapback]

 

This has to be the worst use of an imaginary fortune I've ever heard.

901201[/snapback]

If I won the lottery, I'd spend it on the fecal matter of major international celebrities, so I could claim to have a lot of world-famous shit.

 

Now you've heard a worse use.

[supercat]

It seems to me that in most instances, emulation isn't quite right...the sound is a little off, the colors are wierd. There is also the issue of controllers. Playing games with the original controllers is always preferable...well, unless you are playing the Colecovision or 5200, cuz those controllers suck IMHO.

 

Playing on a real system is better than emulation because you use real controllers. Playing on emulation is better because you don't use real controllers.

[Atariboy2600]

Why I love the REAL hardware then an emulator? Well I may some it up in to three resion,

 

Collecting.

From the first day I got my Atari Super Pong in 76 I loved to collect old and new video games every year from the day I got my 2600 for my birthday in 77 to the NES in my first game console I broth in 85 I had always wanted to keep my old console as do any other collectors like cars or dolls.

 

Nostalgia.

Childhood memory are always great but its also even better if you have somthing to use for memory and real game consoles are the beat to use and no matter how good a an emulator well EMULAT any classic consoles its still not the same.

 

Realistic.

The Real feeling of un-packing, pluging and turning a console on it just can not be emulated ever, even if they had made a unit that let you play any old games just can not grap the feeling of holding a joystick or a game pad that was once a fave past time of your childhood. And this is true for newbie collectors as well.

 

I hope this cuase show you some idea in to why real hardwear are better then any emulators could^_^

[NightSprinter]

I've got to agree with Atariboy on that one. I still love the feeling I get when I pull out my old Vader model 2600, TAC-2 joystick (it was my bat-handle Wico.. gotta go get it from my friend Matt down the road.. I miss my Wico..), and Battlezone cart and start rackin' up 50k+ scores. Though, since I am gettin' a PocketPC in the next few days (yay for early b-day gifts, or somethin'), emulators are gonna make it a bit easier to enjoy the games on the go (like if I'm on a bus or something).

 

The only thing I'd have to disagree on would be program loading for the computers.. I dread the day when I can get the chips to revive my C64s (yeah, two breadbox units), and go to load Pooyan on the datasette recorder (still can't believe I got the official Konami Pooyan on a real datasette..)..

[mos6507]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is screen refresh.

 

Mapping a system that is designed to refresh at 60fps to an arbitrary monitor framerate is an inexact science and I don't think any of the emulators do a particularly good job of it.

 

As a result, I almost always see some "tearing" effects, especially on 2600 games that flicker (like Asteroids). This bugs the heck out of me. Other people might not notice it as much.

 

I guess you could get rid of it if you could set your monitor to 60hz.

 

The other thing is multitasking. Background tasks invariably screw up the sound on my system, especially in MAME. Everything goes scratchy or I get echoes. This is a PIV 2.4ghz machine. You'd think windows would do a better job of prioritizing tasks.

[JB]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is screen refresh.

 

Mapping a system that is designed to refresh at 60fps to an arbitrary monitor framerate is an inexact science and I don't think any of the emulators do a particularly good job of it.

 

As a result, I almost always see some "tearing" effects, especially on 2600 games that flicker (like Asteroids).  This bugs the heck out of me.  Other people might not notice it as much.

 

I guess you could get rid of it if you could set your monitor to 60hz.

Your better emus(speaking in terms of video output) do exactly that.

 

MOST offer a VSync option to prevent tearing, which in my experience is needed even at 60Hz(even slight tearing drives me batty, so I never play without it).

In cases of VSync+non-native refresh, this causes frame skipping and doubling to kick in to even the play rate back out.

 

 

The other thing is multitasking.  Background tasks invariably screw up the sound on my system, especially in MAME.  Everything goes scratchy or I get echoes.  This is a PIV 2.4ghz machine.  You'd think windows would do a better job of prioritizing tasks.

What sound chipset? And have you tried updating the drivers?

 

 

 

I had some problems with Win2K dropping EVERYTHING onto the same interrupt, which caused issues. Sound and video should NOT be on the same interrupt, certainly not for gaming.

Might want to check interrupt assignments, and if necessary tell Windows to give the sound card a diffrent, preferably unused, IRQ. If an unused one isn't around, grab one from a less busy accessory.

[kisrael]

I'm not sure if I'm saying anything new here, but historically, besides availablilty of ROMs relative to hardware, one plus for emulaiton is using cheats and/or save states to plow through games that would otherwise not be worth the time to master, and the advantage of hardware is generally in the controls. The controls issue will become greater as consoles and aracades get more gimmicky or distinctinve control sets.

 

There are some other surprising gotchas in emulation. I made a simple drumpad program using the regular joystick...the sound lag on all the major emulators make it well-night unusable. fact is most emulators fudge the whole "real time" sound thing.

[JB]

I'm not sure if I'm saying anything new here, but historically, besides availablilty of ROMs relative to hardware, one plus for emulaiton is using cheats and/or save states to plow through games that would otherwise not be worth the time to master,

Personally, I don't cheat. I laid that off ages ago.

 

The availability is the main thing for me, though there's a certain convenience to having everything in one place. I can sit down to blow the crap out of aliens, then pause and check some web pages from the same chair.

...

Oh yeah, and fast-forward. I love fast-forward.

 

and the advantage of hardware is generally in the controls.

That's sometimes cited as an emulator advantage, too. All depends which input devices you prefer. I'd take a real SNES pad over my PC pad for most SNES games, but the same PC pad kicks the ass of the NES' and PS' controllers(both devices I'm not very fond of, to put it mildly).

 

Don't have a good joystick for my PC though. That hurts it a bit.

 

 

 

 

And perhaps amusingly, I prefer SNES Arkanoid on emulators to real hardware due to an unimplemented feature.

 

A real SNES mouse supports programmable acceleration. Emulators don't, last I checked.

When playing Arkanoid on RealSNES, the responsiveness of the mouse, and thus how far the paddle moves with a given mouse motion, varies as the ball speeds up, so you're forever missing the ball because you moved too far.

Whatever idiot at Taito thought this was a good idea should be fired. Preferably from a cannon.

 

On an emu, your controls have a consistent behavior, making the game far more enjoyable, as you don't miss the ball due to the game dorking with your controls.

 

...

 

I can also use a trackball on the emu, which I prefer over mice. But that's another story, and definitely takes a back seat to the variable responsiveness issue.

 

The controls issue will become greater as consoles and aracades get more gimmicky or distinctinve control sets.

The really serious arcade emulator users have taken to building their own controllers.

Which is admittedly far easier for arcades than consoles, as it just takes some woodworking skill and a soldering iron.

 

 

Of course, there's also adapters for many console controllers available for sale, as well as plans to make your own.

 

There are some other surprising gotchas in emulation. I made a simple drumpad program using the regular joystick...the sound lag on all the major emulators make it well-night unusable. fact is most emulators fudge the whole "real time" sound thing.

"Also, it points out a serious limitation in most emulators: the sound has a noticeable "lag", so the drumming isn't nearly as much fun. In fact, it sort of sucks...I really need to try running this on a real 2600. "

 

Am I missing something here? It sounds like you've yet to run it on Real2600, which means you're ASSUMING that the audio lag is emulator-related as opposed to code-related.

...

Or were you saying it's something you've noticed before, but it's more visible on a music game than a normal one?

 

 

 

Having said that, I've not been very impressed with 2600 emulation myself.

More modern systems tend to be emulated better, in my experience.

[kisrael]

I'm not sure if I'm saying anything new here, but historically, besides availablilty of ROMs relative to hardware, one plus for emulaiton is using cheats and/or save states to plow through games that would otherwise not be worth the time to master,

Personally, I don't cheat. I laid that off ages ago.

I'll grant you the moral highground on that one, I suppose, but for me it's "too many games, not enough time". Lately I've realized that I really enjoy finding "novel interactions" with videogames, whether its unsual and elegant control schemes (Joust being the pre-eminent early example of that) to a unique Boss attack pattern.) I don't do it to prove to myself that I can beat this, because frankly I don't know that the game maker didn't make it "effectively impossible".

Oh yeah, and fast-forward. I love fast-forward.

Hmm? What's that? Like FF to play the game faster, or to get past cutscenes? And what kind of game is it most useful in? (Reminds me of how I used to find the "harder" fast mode of Coleco tabletop Pacman easier than the normal mode.)

There are some other surprising gotchas in emulation. I made a simple drumpad program using the regular joystick...the sound lag on all the major emulators make it well-night unusable. fact is most emulators fudge the whole "real time" sound thing.

"Also, it points out a serious limitation in most emulators: the sound has a noticeable "lag", so the drumming isn't nearly as much fun. In fact, it sort of sucks...I really need to try running this on a real 2600. "

 

Am I missing something here? It sounds like you've yet to run it on Real2600, which means you're ASSUMING that the audio lag is emulator-related as opposed to code-related.

At the time I wrote that article, I hadn't tried it, but I have since then (surprising pain in the ass to get it onto a supercharger successfully, thanks to the slightly off audio plug...)

 

And sure enough, on the real hardware it was perfectly responsive...which I kind of expected, just given how I know Atari games are written. In the time between THAT TELEVISION FRAME, it decided if the joystick or button was pressed, and acted accordingly. Unlike a more complex consoles, there really isn't a way of making lag in an Atari game without losing your steady television picture.

 

Oh, BTW: the way you write RealSNES and Real2600 as single words make 'em sound like new emulators! I was confused for a bit.

Having said that, I've not been very impressed with 2600 emulation myself.

More modern systems tend to be emulated better, in my experience.

Oh, you SHOULD be impressed...it's MUCH tougher. Most modern stuff is relatively easy with easily abstactable CPUs and displays and what not. Emulating a 2600 is much tougher, since you really have to fake the physical circuitry. That said, I've heard it's more the fault of not having direct access to the sound playing hardware, but relying on the OS's sound processing layers. I think different OSes then have special "multimedia" modes for real time stuff, but then you lose the crossplatform aspect of the emulators.

 

I don't know if MAME etc has the same problem, you just don't notice it (I hadn't noticed it on most Atari games, just my very time sensitive drumpad) or if they bite the bullet and try to get the real time sound stuff going.

[JB]

Personally, I don't cheat. I laid that off ages ago.

I'll grant you the moral highground on that one, I suppose, but for me it's "too many games, not enough time". Lately I've realized that I really enjoy finding "novel interactions" with videogames, whether its unsual and elegant control schemes (Joust  being the pre-eminent early example of that) to a unique Boss attack pattern.)  I don't do it to prove to myself that I can beat this, because frankly I don't know that the game maker didn't make it "effectively impossible".

*nods*

 

And it's not really moral high ground. I used to be an avid Game Genie whore.

Then one day I realized that my gaming skills had seriously atrophied from my constant reliance on cheats, and games I used to have no problem with were throwing up an uncomfortable level of challenge.

 

 

I quit cheating in an attempt to regain what was lost, and keep it. No morals involved.

 

Oh yeah, and fast-forward. I love fast-forward.

Hmm? What's that? Like FF to play the game faster, or to get past cutscenes? And what kind of game is it most useful in? (Reminds me of how I used to find the "harder" fast mode of Coleco tabletop Pacman easier than the normal mode.)

It's pr'ly best used in RPGs. Or anything with an unskippable intro.

 

I don't use it to play the game in turbo mode, partially because the stuff I have FF on fast-forwards too fast to be playable.

 

 

But I DO tend to tap it quickly in just about anything that makes me wait. On a particularly bad day, I use it to skip the momentary respawn delays after I die.

...

Yes, I have some serious patience problems sometimes.

 

Am I missing something here? It sounds like you've yet to run it on Real2600, which means you're ASSUMING that the audio lag is emulator-related as opposed to code-related.

At the time I wrote that article, I hadn't tried it, but I have since then (surprising pain in the ass to get it onto a supercharger successfully, thanks to the slightly off audio plug...)

 

And sure enough, on the real hardware it was perfectly responsive...which I kind of expected, just given how I know Atari games are written. In the time between THAT TELEVISION FRAME, it decided if the joystick or button was pressed, and acted accordingly.  Unlike a more complex consoles, there really isn't a way of making lag in an Atari game without losing your steady television picture.

M'kay. Just checking.

 

Oh, BTW: the way you write RealSNES and Real2600 as single words make 'em sound like new emulators! I was confused for a bit.

 

 

Having said that, I've not been very impressed with 2600 emulation myself.

More modern systems tend to be emulated better, in my experience.

Oh, you SHOULD be impressed...it's MUCH tougher. Most modern stuff is relatively easy with easily abstactable CPUs and displays and what not. Emulating a 2600 is much tougher, since you really have to fake the physical circuitry.

Okay, let me rephrase.

 

I've not been impressed with the actual accuracy when compared to other systems.

I'm still fairly impressed with the effort involved to make it work at all.

 

 

I know the 2600 is a bitch and a half to emulate due to the design of the system.

 

I don't know if MAME etc has the same problem, you just don't notice it (I hadn't noticed it on most Atari games, just my very time sensitive drumpad) or if they bite the bullet and try to get the real time sound stuff going.

945029[/snapback]

In the Windows version, MAME's got a latency option that tweaks how much it buffers sound-wise. By default it keeps the buffer mostly empty.

They note that there's very noticable lag if you make it use the whole buffer.

I don't think it's possible to entirely avoid buffering while within Windows.

 

The DOS version, of course, has direct hardware access.

 

 

Running through the list, I've got a few emus that allow a user-configurable buffer length. Default sizes seem to be somewhere around 50-100 milliseconds of audio.

I can only guess at what the rest of them do.

 

 

I can't think of any games that I've noticed being out of sync with the audio when I was playing. Could just be a case of "close enough" though. I'd have to run through and do a survey to be certain.

 

 

 

 

 

QBerting 10-quote limit.

Edited October 9, 2005 by JB

[kisrael]

And it's not really moral high ground. I used to be an avid Game Genie whore.

Then one day I realized that my gaming skills had seriously atrophied from my constant reliance on cheats, and games I used to have no problem with were throwing up an uncomfortable level of challenge.

 

 

I quit cheating in an attempt to regain what was lost, and keep it.  No morals involved.

Interesting. I wonder if the rise of FAQ sites has had a similar process for the whole industry...it's ok to make games that "need" walkthrus....though I suppose even that goes back to the old NES phone line.

 

 

Oh yeah, and fast-forward. I love fast-forward.

It's pr'ly best used in RPGs. Or anything with an unskippable intro.

Heh...you know, that combines with my last idea that I'm into games for "novel interactions" ...which is why RPGs bore the living crap out of me. Basically, if what makes the game "interesting" is done by the story writer or artist department...I'm not interested. I'm only interested in stuff new enough that a programmer would probably have to write it.

 

 

But I DO tend to tap it quickly in just about anything  that makes me wait. On a particularly bad day, I use it to skip the momentary respawn delays after I die.

...

Yes, I have some serious patience problems sometimes.

Reminds me of this line from "Things My Girlfriend and I have Argued About" (FUNNY book) -- something a character says about a "Type A" manager..."I guarantee you he has never, EVER heard the third beep a microwaves makes when it's done cooking"

 

 

 

 

Okay, let me rephrase.

 

I've not been impressed with the actual accuracy when compared to other systems.

I'm still fairly impressed with the effort involved to make it work at all.

 

Hmm..could be. But it seems like most every Atari ROM I fire up in Z26 works pretty damn well, and thats about all I ask for...

 

QBerting 10-quote limit.

Haven't run into it. AA limitation?

[JB]

But I DO tend to tap it quickly in just about anything  that makes me wait. On a particularly bad day, I use it to skip the momentary respawn delays after I die.

...

Yes, I have some serious patience problems sometimes.

Reminds me of this line from "Things My Girlfriend and I have Argued About" (FUNNY book) -- something a character says about a "Type A" manager..."I guarantee you he has never, EVER heard the third beep a microwaves makes when it's done cooking"

*chuckles*

That's me.

 

 

 

Okay, let me rephrase.

 

I've not been impressed with the actual accuracy when compared to other systems.

I'm still fairly impressed with the effort involved to make it work at all.

 

Hmm..could be. But it seems like most every Atari ROM I fire up in Z26 works pretty damn well, and thats about all I ask for...

Guess I should give 'em another chance, then.

 

I think I found out about Z26 after I'd opretty much given up on them, so it never got a chance.

 

QBerting 10-quote limit.

Haven't run into it. AA limitation?

It's a limitation of the board software. And it only hits serial quoters like myself. Get more than 10 pairs of quote tags in a post, and it doesn't parse ANY of them.

Edited October 9, 2005 by JB

[Hyper_Eye]

Anytime I use an emualtor it is on the XBox. So I still get to play it on a T.V. and get to use a controller as opposed to a keyboard. And I find the the XBox Controller S is actually quite nice for SNES and NES. I know the Dreamcast has some good emulators as well. While I find that playing on the XBox makes games feel pretty close to authentic I would still rather play on the real hardware anyday.

Edited October 13, 2005 by Hyper_Eye

[JB]

Anytime I use an emualtor it is on the XBox. So I still get to play it on a T.V. and get to use a controller as opposed to a keyboard.

I've got PC controllers.

Started with a Gravis Gamepad Pro(which is complete shit, BTW).

 

And I find the the XBox Controller S is actually quite nice for SNES and NES.

It looks it.

 

I use a Saitek P880. Third PC gamepad I've owned, and I'm very happy with it.

One of the few devices I can actually recommend.

 

I know the Dreamcast has some good emulators as well. While I find that playing on the XBox makes games feel pretty close to authentic I would still rather play on the real hardware anyday.

I've only tried 5200 emulation on my DC.

It had sound glitches, but was by far the best-behaved emu I've used in terms of control.