Beta Fallout

[ptitSeb]

Here is a Fallout launcher.

The game use DosBOX to make it run. You can use datas from the GoG windows version or (untested) from the Steam Windows version. Of course, the original data from the DOS CD Version should work.

Either put the setup_fallout.exe in appdata/fallout or the Windows or DOS data in appdata/fallout/FALLOUT

Unfortunatly, the Pandora CPU is a bit too weak to have fullspeed enjoyable experience (dispatite my optim attempts). Still, the game is playable, so I put it here as "beta".

History log
=========
Build 03
-------------

• New DosBOX build. Should be faster
• Hint: disable music for faster gameplay.

Build 02
-------------

• Removed some debug leftover.

Build 01
-------------

• Initial build
• automatic GoG setup extraction
• automatic Windows to DOS migration
• Optimized DosBOX version.

 

[Faust]

Thanks ptitSeb! I'm a bit curious, Fallout works well with Exagear, right?

 

[ptitSeb]

I don't own Exagear, so I cannot say (and anyway, you will still need dosbox, a x86 build, to run it).

 

[TrashyMG]

yeah I believe on the pandora an optimized version of DOSBOX with the dos version of the game would beat Exagear + WINE with the Windows version of Fallout.

 

[Klumpen]

Best game ever.

Pyra running Fallout with the widescreen-mod via WINE would be incredible.

 

[Faust]

So what are the differences between cd version and dos version? Both can work with dosbox?

 

[TrashyMG]

So what are the differences between cd version and dos version? Both can work with dosbox?

both DOS and Windows versions came on CDs originally, actually both versions may have been on the same CD.... Obviously Windows ran on Windows and DOS ran on DOS...

 

[Caine]

One of the best games ever made. A true classic, standing high upon a pedestal which it shares with only a few.

 

[Faust]

both DOS and Windows versions came on CDs originally, actually both versions may have been on the same CD.... Obviously Windows ran on Windows and DOS ran on DOS...

Oh I see, so the only benefits from playing it on Windows are the mods?

 

[TrashyMG]

Oh I see, so the only benefits from playing it on Windows are the mods?

perhaps, not having to exit out of Windows to play the DOS version... This game was released in an era when some people just didn't run Windows, or was stuck with Windows 3.x etc...

 

[hitbyambulance]

perhaps, not having to exit out of Windows to play the DOS version... This game was released in an era when some people just didn't run Windows, or was stuck with Windows 3.x etc...

yeah, when Fallout was originally released i was on a Pentium 60 with MS-DOS (which was my situation until 1997 or 1998 or so - next desktop i had was an AMD K6-400 inherited from my deceased uncle and ran Win98).

 

[ElPoco]

It's playable but it's a bit painful to play with the poor performances. I've tried it on Exagear as well and was really disappointed. Fallout Tactics is running about as well on Exagear as this Fallout 1 so I was expecting Fallout 1 to run better, but it doesn't. It's actually very very slow on Exagear.

 

[ptitSeb]

It's quite odd, because spec for Fallout seems reacheable.
Here is a sudo perf top of dosbox running fallout

Spoiler

   PerfTop:     878 irqs/sec  kernel:19.2%  exact:  0.0% [1000Hz cycles],  (all, 1 CPU)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23.51%  perf-3868.map         [.] 0x4673778c
     6.10%  dosbox                [.] CPU_Core_Normal_Run()
     5.65%  dosbox                [.] CPU_Core_Dynrec_Run()
     5.64%  [kernel]              [k] omap3_enter_idle
     5.25%  dosbox                [.] mem_readd_checked_drc(unsigned int)
     4.91%  dosbox                [.] PIC_RunQueue()
     3.71%  [kernel]              [k] __hrtimer_start_range_ns
     3.47%  dosbox                [.] RENDER_StartLineHandler(void const*)
     2.63%  dosbox                [.] Normal1x_9_16_R(void const*)
     2.48%  dosbox                [.] MakeCodePage(unsigned int, CodePageHandlerDynRec*&)
     2.07%  dosbox                [.] get_ZF()
     2.03%  dosbox                [.] mem_writed_checked_drc(unsigned int, unsigned int)
     1.46%  dosbox                [.] FillFlags()
     1.42%  dosbox                [.] get_OF()
     1.01%  dosbox                [.] dynrec_pop_dword()
     0.99%  dosbox                [.] get_SF()
     0.93%  dosbox                [.] dynrec_push_dword(unsigned int)
     0.88%  dosbox                [.] Normal_Loop()
     0.85%  dosbox                [.] mem_readb_checked_drc(unsigned int)
     0.82%  [kernel]              [k] tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick
     0.77%  [kernel]              [k] __schedule
     0.69%  dosbox                [.] get_CF()
     0.69%  dosbox                [.] dynrec_cmp_dword(unsigned int, unsigned int)
     0.69%  dosbox                [.] mem_readd(unsigned int)
     0.68%  libasound.so.2.0.0    [.] 0xa9794
     0.66%  dosbox                [.] mem_readw_checked_drc(unsigned int)
     0.57%  [kernel]              [k] __do_softirq
     0.54%  dosbox                [.] mem_writed(unsigned int, unsigned int)
     0.52%  [kernel]              [k] getnstimeofday
     0.51%  dosbox                [.] PAGING_LinkPage(unsigned int, unsigned int)
     0.45%  libgcc_s.so.1         [.] __udivmoddi4
     0.40%  dosbox                [.] dynrec_get_sf_neq_of()
     0.39%  dosbox                [.] dynrec_test_dword(unsigned int, unsigned int)
     0.38%  dosbox                [.] DmaChannel::Read(unsigned int, unsigned char*)

You can see there are 2 Cores running, dynamic & Normal, because there are a few instruction not handled by the dynamic core and that fall back to interpreted one (mainly, scasb 0xae, lss 0xb2, lar 0x0f 0x02 and lsl 0x0f 0x03) but not sure it's enough to explain the poor resulting performances.

 

[___]

lol... I don't even know what to say anymore. except for: thanks for all your work ptitSeb! once again you amaze me with another great release, you're pumping out ports like a machine gun!

 

[notaz]

If the game is that good (never played it for whatever reason), and many people would want to play it, I could check how hard static recompilation of it would be.

 

[ptitSeb]

If the game is that good (never played it for whatever reason), and many people would want to play it, I could check how hard static recompilation of it would be.

Based on the Windows version?
That would certainely be a more viable aternative to DosBOX!

 

[ekianjo]

If the game is that good (never played it for whatever reason), and many people would want to play it, I could check how hard static recompilation of it would be.

If you want to go this way, I'd personally recommend you do a recompilation of Fallout 2 instead as it's probably the better game of the two episodes. Of course, it probably depends on the difficulty - not saying you should.

 

[Faust]

If the game is that good (never played it for whatever reason), and many people would want to play it, I could check how hard static recompilation of it would be.

It's really kind. However if you are willing to do a static recompilation, it would be definitely better to add the restauration patch before, but this patch is really huge.

 

[___]

yes fallout 2 in a community patched state would be the best investment for a static recompilation! notaz, that would be great indeed.

 

[Klumpen]

I still prefer Fallout 1.
It's the number 1 on my list of favourite games while Fallout 2 is somehow on place 2 or 3.