Possible Ports For The Gpx2


Quake 1
Quake 2

dunno how good q2 ran on my 166 pentium w/ software rendering, but i guess the gpx2 should be able to do it (64 ddr ram + hw floatingpoint = yay).
but don't count on it.

one thing is for sure: with sdl support out of the box both games should be way easier to port (if a sdl port of both is out. afaik it is (otherwise q1/2 wouldn't work with the sdl tty backend). but i might still be wrong.

nonetheless, with a standard linux toolchain and everything it might be possible to port super mario war.

bytheway, a new version is coming up ;)
 
LDChen posted on Aug 5 2005 at 11:02 AM said:
While talking about ports...
The new GPX2 won't be compatible with GP32 software, but in my opinion this isn't a big problem.
Most of the GP32 software is open-source.
And all you need are some compatibility libraries, with common GP32 function (like GpFileOpen, GpGraphicModeSet, etc).
Recompiling all software shouldn't take so long: in few days you should be able to use the same software currently available.

Sincerely,

LDChen


*thinking of the huge use of assembler in gp32 software to optimize things*
*crying*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no_skill posted on Aug 10 2005 at 05:51 PM said:
*thinking of the huge use of assembler in gp32 software to optimize things*
*crying*

Go high-level languages, common API's
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no_skill posted on Aug 10 2005 at 05:45 PM said:
Quake 1
Quake 2

dunno how good q2 ran on my 166 pentium w/ software rendering, but i guess the gpx2 should be able to do it (64 ddr ram + hw floatingpoint = yay).
but don't count on it.

one thing is for sure: with sdl support out of the box both games should be way easier to port (if a sdl port of both is out. afaik it is (otherwise q1/2 wouldn't work with the sdl tty backend). but i might still be wrong.

nonetheless, with a standard linux toolchain and everything it might be possible to port super mario war.

bytheway, a new version is coming up ;)

I suspect quake II is out of the reach of the GPX2, and I think is perhaps my only reason to splurge on a XGP instead. Although I didn't know whether to include quake 1 as really its on GP32 :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
# A 100% Windows 95/98/ME/NT 4.0/2000-compatible computer system (including compatible 32-bit drivers for CD-ROM drive , video card, sound card and input devices)
# Pentium® 90 MHz processor (133 recommended) or higher or Athlon® processor
# 16MB RAM required for Windows 95/98, 24MB required for all other supported operating systems
# Quad-speed CD-ROM drive (600 K/sec. sustained transfer rate)
# 100% Microsoft®-compatible mouse and driver
# 25MB of uncompressed hard disk space for game files (Minimum Install), plus 45MB for the Windows swap file

http://www.idsoftware.com/games/quake/quak..._section=sysreq

i know, there's a difference between a 200mhz arm and 133mhz pentium, but we're running 320x240, not 640x480+. might be possible.

but as far as i remember q2 takes 300meg harddisk space. so we might need one of the bigger sd cards.


----------

btw: the reason why gpquake runs so slow on the gp32 is the missing hardware floating point unit. take a closer look at the sf page and trust me :)
as far as i'm informed the gpx2 has hardware fp support. this should bring a HUGE speed boost.
 
If the x2 has hardware floating point (some posts say it has, but I don't know whether to believe them) then quake2 is a certainty. If not then it will probably still appear on the x2 (it has the memory to at least load it which was the only thing stopping me trying a gp32 quake2 port) but there's no telling how it may run. Might be slow but playable like quake1 on the gp32, who knows.
 
Well, if there's guys around like you to give this kind of stuff a chance, I'm sure the GPx2 will sell. Quake2 was personally my favourite of the series and still a great game IMO. Pity the x2 has no wifi :(
 
if the devs really can use the second CPU and the 2D acceleration ( i think this 2d would be also good for 3D, am i right?) then we can do Quake1 fullspeed and perhaps Quake2 with the speed Quake1 has right now on the gp32.
There was a quake2 port on the dreamcast which was software mode i think and it was really playable, but only 2 maps or so because of memory problems, the dreamcast has 16MB and the GPX2 64MB..
 
Sonic-NKT posted on Aug 11 2005 at 05:43 AM said:
if the devs really can use the second CPU and the 2D acceleration ( i think this 2d would be also good for 3D, am i right?) then we can do Quake1 fullspeed and perhaps Quake2 with the speed Quake1 has right now on the gp32.

how do you know this? ;P don't talk if you have no idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no_skill posted on Aug 11 2005 at 03:55 PM said:
how do you know this? ;P don't talk if you have no idea.

Sonic-NKT posted on Aug 11 2005 at 05:43 AM said:
if the devs really can use the second CPU and the 2D acceleration ( i think this 2d would be also good for 3D, am i right?) then we can do Quake1 fullspeed and perhaps Quake2 with the speed Quake1 has right now on the gp32.

Note the words I've bolded above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i said i think and i compared it to the dreamcast quake 2 port which runs almost fullspeed when i remember correctly in software mode.
THe dreamcast has 200Mhz and 16Mb Ram.
 
no_skill posted on Aug 11 2005 at 07:05 AM said:
still a random assumption thrown in.

Speculation is healthy. I read the specification for quake 2, and it stated accelerated graphics. I also remember trying to play quake II when I was younger, and it looking like a screensaver. I played it properly for the first time just recently on the xbox and was surprised how good it looked. If it really worked on the gpx2 I would wet myself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I could see Q1 getting 30fps at least. As far as GPH have made clear, the 2D graphics core is open for general instructions which mean it will be good for a considerable amount of number crunching. Even assuming the 2d core isn't used, you're still looking at a significant increase in bandwidth to speed things along over the GP32.

Q2.... Who knows, it ran on a 166mhz machine at a playable frame rate and that was with the overhead of windows. Q2 is a lot harder to play without mouselook though
 
I studied to port Exult to GP32, but after analising it and contacting its authors I took the conclusion that it would be almost imposible due to memory limitations.

I think this limitation would be superated by the new GPX2 so I will retry all my efforts to port it to the new system :)

I can wait to have my GPX2 to start porting my GP Lady Killer to it :D
 
Sonic-NKT posted on Aug 11 2005 at 08:39 PM said:
dont forget the FPU which the gpx2 has

That GPX2 has a confirmed FPU, then? Mind directing me to the evidence (not that I don't believe, I've just heard so much speculation as to whether yae or nae that I honestly don't know, and I'd like some more info)

If it DOES, then that, I think, will improve matters quite a bit; although given the optimisations present these days in the floating to fixed conversion in GCC that I remember were the hot topic of the day many months back, I don't actually know whether this will make as much difference as it might have done before those were improved.

I well remember the days when, but a year and a half ago, people thought a GP32 as it is now but with more ram and an FPU was the dream - and frankly, if that's now the case, I'm even more for the console than I was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top