Can We Get A N64 Emulator At All?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anhaedra

Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
250
Yeah, dynamic recompilation sounds like it's worth a try... It might work with some overclocking...
 

Goity

VIP Sleaze
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
5,598
Location
Isle of Ewe
LordJohnnie posted on Mar 23 2006 at 03:54 PM said:
I love these debates. If only for the hilarity of the posts. Truthfully, emulating the N64 is not impossible. Infact, any game can be "cloned" and recreated in a satisfactory manner. Don't ask the average internet Joe to answer your questions about emulation. Emulation isn't the full and complete recreation of all hardware of a given machine. It is rather the virtualization of the user experience. And if that is a videogame, what could be easier? Read up on dynamic recompilation. The ultimate end of the concept of Dynamic recompilation is that the orignal hardware is not emulated at all. But rather the code of the video game is rewritten to run natively. And if that means that it is rewritten to run using "lower quality" or "lower polycount" graphics, it is still being emulated.

EVERY EMULATOR CREATED FOR THE GP2X WAS RELENTLESSY DENOUNCED BY SKEPTICAL FORUM REGULARS. NONE MORESO THAN THE PLAYSTATION EMULATOR GP2PSX.

The first xbox emulators used nearly exclusively the concept of dynamic recompilation. It would be stupid to "emulate" the xbox hardware fully and completely when it was basically a windows PC anyway (running on stripped down NT kernel). Recompiling it's code makes more sense.

For example, take mario 64. You can easily clone this game with a basic 3D engine and lots of free time. It won't be emulating N64 hardware and it won't be using all the polygons used in the original, but in the end, it will be emulated and hillarious skepticism by the average internet user will be forgotten.
I don't usually say this but...
Stfu N00b
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DijiTao

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
572
LordJohnnie posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:54 AM said:
I love these debates. If only for the hilarity of the posts. Truthfully, emulating the N64 is not impossible. Infact, any game can be "cloned" and recreated in a satisfactory manner.
Cloning is not Emulating, if anything its Simulating. Sure the results can be acceptable but it’s simply not the same thing.

LordJohnnie posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:54 AM said:
Don't ask the average internet Joe to answer your questions about emulation. Emulation isn't the full and complete recreation of all hardware of a given machine. It is rather the virtualization of the user experience.
Emulation is allowing program code design for one piece of hardware run on another.

LordJohnnie posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:54 AM said:
And if that is a videogame, what could be easier? Read up on dynamic recompilation. The ultimate end of the concept of Dynamic recompilation is that the orignal hardware is not emulated at all. But rather the code of the video game is rewritten to run natively. And if that means that it is rewritten to run using "lower quality" or "lower polycount" graphics, it is still being emulated.
You might want to read up on dynamic recompilation yourself. I think you’ve confused the advantages of dynamic recompilation with straight porting which relies on the fact that source code is available. Dynamic recompilation is done at the assembly level, and the speed benefits gained come from the fact that the host cpu is capable of more efficiently performing some operations then the cpu being emulated so speed can be gained by performing the operation using the more efficient method. For a good explanation of these see the Example in the Wikipedia topic on the subject. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_recompilation) As for “lower quality” or “lower polycount” graphics, there is a grain of truth here, but it has nothing to do with dynamic recompilation. If the game stores its resources for graphics and models in a forum that is modifiable in advance then you can use this to your advantage. For example you replace all of the texture data in the game with textures that take up less memory, you could see a performance boost. Lower polycount graphics is dubious at best, but I suppose theoretically it could be possible.

LordJohnnie posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:54 AM said:
EVERY EMULATOR CREATED FOR THE GP2X WAS RELENTLESSY DENOUNCED BY SKEPTICAL FORUM REGULARS. NONE MORESO THAN THE PLAYSTATION EMULATOR GP2PSX.
The only emulator that I seem to remember being meet with skepticism is the Playsation emulator, and honestly is such skepticism so unfounded? It maybe possible to get quite a few playsation games running at playable speeds, but all of them? That just seems incredibly unlikely, especially running at fullspeed, no frameskip “perfect” emulation. Look at the port of Quake 1 to the GP2X. Even running completely natively it’s only getting 10-20 frames per second. Given the similarities between Quake 1 and some of the more advanced playsation games, it’s just not that unreasonable to think fullspeed playsation emulation is not happening.

LordJohnnie posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:54 AM said:
The first xbox emulators used nearly exclusively the concept of dynamic recompilation. It would be stupid to "emulate" the xbox hardware fully and completely when it was basically a windows PC anyway (running on stripped down NT kernel). Recompiling it's code makes more sense.
The approached used by the Xbox emulators is NOT dynamic recompilation it’s API translation. This is how WINE is allows x86 Linux users to run Windows programs.

LordJohnnie posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:54 AM said:
For example, take mario 64. You can easily clone this game with a basic 3D engine and lots of free time. It won't be emulating N64 hardware and it won't be using all the polygons used in the original, but in the end, it will be emulated and hillarious skepticism by the average internet user will be forgotten.
No it won’t be emulated. That’s like saying Halo Zero (http://www.halozero.new.fr/) emulates Halo.

At the risk of being rude – Please think before posting because I or others like me won’t always want to take the time to point out just how wrong you are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LordJohnnie

Still Fresh
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
27
I am very flattered, DijiTao, that you would take the time to show me "how wrong" I am.

If that is the point of fourm discussions, fighting over who is right or wrong, that is very sad.

Firstly, I was not defining what emulation is, but rather the method of emulation that we are refering to. There has been no console or videogame emulator that has been a complete "simulation." Or at the very least no complete simulation that was practical in the sense that "can I run this on my 400mhz PC?" An emulator by your definition, of a playstation 1 would certainly not run on a 400mhz PC with no dedicated 3D hardware. However, the kind of emulator that we are refering to and all use does infact run happily on a 400mhz PC with no dedicated 3D hardware. So, contrary to your elaborate reasoning, I am very much right to what an emulator (that we are refering to) is. Every practical emulator is one that has "results" that are "acceptable" but "simply not the same thing." Again, supporting my statement that emulators are infact virtualizers.

Also the intention of this forum thread is the question if the N64 could be emulated on the GP2X and at full speed (or in an acceptable, satisfactory manner)?

And that answer is YES.

However, what the GP2X cannot do is simulate the full and complete hardware of the N64, which would never have been the intention or method of "emulation" anyway.
 

rokdcasbah

got me a date with botticelli's niece
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,517
Location
up on cripple creek
lordjohnnie, you are absolutely correct about the philosophical goal of emulation. however, in practice emulation is typically done by creating a virtual machine...lets say the nes only has 8 bytes of memory. this means that we need to write a program that keeps track internally of 256 memory locations (or something like that. i'm no expert). each possible cpu instruction for the emulated device must correspond a number of lines in the program, and so on.

so looking at it from the top down, our goal is simple: recreate the experience. given that one task, the sky's the limit...we can do things like skip frames, shrink palettes, ignore certain parts of the hardware. but most emulators are coded from the "bottom up", that is, every instruction and memory location must be accounted for. and to do that properly, given the respective power of the n64 and the gp2x, the answer is still "not likely".
 

iignotus

The one and only
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
2,719
Website
gp2xdev.no-ip.org
LordJohnnie said:
If that is the point of fourm discussions, fighting over who is right or wrong, that is very sad.
If that is the point, of reasoning, to come to the correct conclusion, then I want no part of it.
However, what the GP2X cannot do is simulate the full and complete hardware of the N64, which would never have been the intention or method of "emulation" anyway.
That's exactly what the intention of emulation is. What you keep talking about it something like selective interpretation.
Also the intention of this forum thread is the question if the N64 could be emulated on the GP2X and at full speed (or in an acceptable, satisfactory manner)?

And that answer is YES.
It is? How do you know? Have you written one of these hypothetical emulators that runs N64 games on the GP2X at near-fullspeed? You can't just make something up and expect it to fly; those of us saying how unlikely it is are judging with the knowledge of what kind of resources an N64 emulator needs. Where's a running example of your magical interpreter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DijiTao

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
572
LordJohnnie said:
I am very flattered, DijiTao, that you would take the time to show me "how wrong" I am.

If that is the point of fourm discussions, fighting over who is right or wrong, that is very sad.
What sad is when people post without backing up their ideas. I’m feeling either bored or charitable today, so I’ll further your education.

LordJohnnie said:
Firstly, I was not defining what emulation is, but rather the method of emulation that we are refering to. There has been no console or videogame emulator that has been a complete "simulation."
Emulation has a definition, Simulation has a definition - these are not my definitions but objectively correct ones. To give you an example of a program that is a total simulation look at Stepmania (http://stepmania.com). Stepmania is a simulation of arcade game Dance Dance Revolution (http://klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=&game_id=13032). It provides a very similar user experience to Dance Dance Revolution, but Stepmania is in no way an emulator. Simulator != Emulator.

LordJohnnie said:
Or at the very least none that are practical in the sense that "can I run this on my 400mhz PC?" An emulator by your definition, of a playstation 1 would certainly not run on a 400mhz PC with no dedicated 3D hardware. However, the kind of emulator that we are refering to and all use does infact run happily on a 400mhz PC with no dedicated 3D hardware.
"My" definition of an emulator is “Emulation is allowing program code design for one piece of hardware run on another”, nothing in that definition implies that a 400Mhz PC is incapable of emulating a playstation 1. A great example of such an emulator was the ill-fated Bleem!, which worked pretty well with such a PC. However, in this very argument of yours you’ve fundamentally already acknowledged the minimum requirements for playable playsation emulation without 3D acceleration is a 400Mhz PC. The GP2X’s cpu is not as powerful as a 400Mhz Pentium.

LordJohnnie said:
So, contrary to your elaborate reasoning, I am very much right to what an emulator (that we are refering to) is. Every practical emulator is one that has "results" that are "acceptable" but "simply not the same thing." Again, supporting my statement that emulators are infact virtualizers.
No, you don’t even know what an emulator is.
Go read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_recompilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WINE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clone_%28comp..._video_games%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulator

Once your done with those you might understand the subject a bit better.

LordJohnnie said:
Also the intention of this forum thread is the question if the N64 could be emulated on the GP2X and at full speed (or in an acceptable, satisfactory manner)?

And that answer is YES.
My answer is NO. This is based off my understanding of the hardware of the GP2X and the N64, the available emulation techniques available (HLE, Dynamic Recompilation, etc…), and how similar systems have faired. The GP2X is not capable of emulating the N64 with reasonable accuracy and playable speeds.

The question of “Can the GP2X play games that are clones of N64 games?” the answer is YES.

LordJohnnie said:
However, what the GP2X cannot do is simulate the full and complete hardware of the N64, which would never have been the intention or method of "emulation" anyway.
Actually, and this is the funny part, the GP2X is capable of simulating a N64, what it’s not capable of doing is emulating one.

Finally, just so you can have a good grasp of the situation go read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N64#Specifications

then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation#Specifications

The Playsation is SIGNFICANTLY less powerful then the N64. While it would take some incredible coding, it’s very unlikely but with in the realm of possible that the playstation could be emulated on the GP2X at playable speeds, however the likelihood of the more powerful N64 being emulated is next to none.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mattyrb

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
151
Squidge posted on Mar 23 2006 at 01:27 PM said:
Hmmm, NES is just about taking off nicely. SNES is not full speed, but with Reesy's hacks, it seems to be doing ok. N64 is in another league entirely. Personally, I'd say forget about it until you find a GP2X thats at least double the speed of the current model, and with bolted on 3D accelerator.

Hmmm, Gizmondo ;)

Gizmondo 40 quid from HMV..........buy one quick the company went bust :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mattyrb

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
151
Trashman posted on Mar 23 2006 at 03:28 PM said:
People must have no understanding of the hardware inside the gp2x and the hardware inside the machine they want emulating. I know nintendo's 64 is an older machine but dedicated 3d hardware is still something that these two little processors are going to spew their guts up to copy.
Has anyone done ps2 yet? ;)
Yes I'm working on it in beta testing now.........it requires a PS2 and a tv to work tho........
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gruntfuggly

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
1,486
Location
Brighton, UK
Website
www.zaonce.com
The way I see it is like this:

Simulation - recreating the original by whatever means necessary as long as it looks and plays reasonably like the original, but not necessarily exactly the same.

Emulation - executing the original unmodified code on different hardware or software. However the hardware or software is configured is irrelevant - and I think that's where some of the confusion is coming about - dynarec, HLE, etc. are just different methods of acheiving the same result, but essentially, the original code is still being executed. The result is that it does look and play exactly like the original, although maybe slower.

That's how I see it, but I may be wrong...

Ghost and Goblins on the Gameboy is a simulation, Ghosts and Goblins in MAME is emulated and as such is a different experience.
 

Squidge

Certified Guru
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
8,495
Location
UK
Website
Visit site
mattyrb posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:38 PM said:
Gizmondo 40 quid from HMV..........buy one quick the company went bust :p
Yup, and homebrew is already flooding out the door for it :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nickspoon

vultum stultum habes
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
4,234
Age
27
Location
Essex, UK
Website
Visit site
Squidge posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:08 PM said:
mattyrb posted on Mar 23 2006 at 10:38 PM said:
Gizmondo 40 quid from HMV..........buy one quick the company went bust :p
Yup, and homebrew is already flooding out the door for it :)
Eh? £40? They're selling on eBay for as much as £70!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DijiTao

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
572
Gruntfuggly posted on Mar 23 2006 at 05:03 PM said:
The way I see it is like this:

Simulation - recreating the original by whatever means necessary as long as it looks and plays reasonably like the original, but not necessarily exactly the same.

Emulation - executing the original unmodified code on different hardware or software. However the hardware or software is configured is irrelevant - and I think that's where some of the confusion is coming about - dynarec, HLE, etc. are just different methods of acheiving the same result, but essentially, the original code is still being executed. The result is that it does look and play exactly like the original, although maybe slower.

That's how I see it, but I may be wrong...

Ghost and Goblins on the Gameboy is a simulation, Ghosts and Goblins in MAME is emulated and as such is a different experience.
depends - if Capcom used the orginal Ghost and Goblins code when making the Gameboy version then it would be a port. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Epicenter

Very Active Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
2,068
Age
35
Location
USA
Website
www.epicgaming.us or http
It's possible to run N64 emulators on the GP2X, we've seen a slow port of one with C cores for emulation, and it was horrifically slow. Simply put, the only reason the PSP can run N64 emulation with a SEMBLANCE of decency is that it has a MIPS CPU that understands instructions from the EARLIER MIPS chip used in the N64 so game code can be interpreted rather than emulated on a virtual software CPU like it would have to be on the ARM9-- the PSP has a major speed advantage here. Even 2D games will just be drawing sprites on flat polygons and still doing float-heavy 3D calculation!

2nd, N64 games are ungodly-reliant on floating point math since they run predominantly in 3D, which is inherently float-heavy. The PSP has an FPU and the GP2x does not, so the PSP has a huge performance advantage in pretty much anything 3D. Thirdly, the PSP has a GPU that is able to render 3D with hardware support; the GP2x only has Hardware *2D* acceleration via the blitter. This doesn't do a bit of good rendering the high-poly scenes in N64 games.

If an N64 emulator WAS written for the '2x using a real ARM9-ASM MIPS emulation core, with software 3D and floating point emulation, it would run very very slowly. "Under 6 FPS if you're lucky" slowly. It's not even worth arguing over, it's not about pessimism or optimism or if the GP2x can work magic and exceed expectations. This is just simple fact from an engineering standpoint. The Gp2x is a terrible system for 3D emulation.
 

DaveC

Internal Development
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
9,208
nickspoon posted on Mar 23 2006 at 09:14 PM said:
Nothing is impossible.

Nothing is impossible? really? Pretty bold statement there ;)

But since nothing is impossible I want:

A PSP, XBOX 360, PS2, Gamecube, GBA, DS emulator at full speed with full sound FS0 running on my GP2X. You said "nothing is impossible" so now I want the magic GP2X to have these, all it would take is a little optimised ASM code right :rolleyes:

That was a pretty stupid thing to say don't you think?
playable N64 among other things IS impossible on the GP2X whether you believe it or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top