RockOut
Member
Mario 64 would run perfectly well on the GP2X IF it were actually coded for the GP2X. That is the one advantage that the DS has. Emulating hardware requires much more effort.
Gp2x And N64
- Thread starter hughes37
- Start date
- Status
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
No, it wouldn't, the GP2x lacks any 3D hardware acceleration, and the 2D acceleration is somewhat....limited.
Last edited by a moderator:
It could probably be done it would just be a bit stripped down. It would not have filtering, AA, or perspective correct textures. The DS version doesn't have filtering or AA either though. If you look at Payback it shows that you can do some ok integer based 3D at an acceptable framerate. If you look at M64 it is pretty basic as far as geometry. It really doesn't push the envelope with tons of polys or anything.
Kind of doesn't matter as no one is going to remake it anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
Dave, you are the one thats always worried about framerate. The DS runs M64 at 60fps at about half the resolution, or something like that, or the GP2x, with dedicated 3D hardware. Paybacks nothing compared to Mario64 :S I'm not saying its bad, but payback is something to run on the GBA, M64 is something to run on the DS. It's a big difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
Epicenter
Well-Known Member
Rewritten. As in, modified and recompiled from source code, which was probably C, which we don't have. No one but the developers/publishers the source to 99.999% of games so this is a useless argument. The most stressful aspect of Mario 64 was rendering its graphics-- the N64's CPU resources were far less strained. So the NDS' graphical hardware is the more significant factor-- and it's quite close to the N64's capabilities. Regardless SM64 had to be scaled back to run on the NDS-- notice how many models were replaced with sprites.yep. BUT - Super Mario 64 was rewrritten from N64 MIPS to NDS ARM cpu. And NDS is only 66mhz and SM64 runs very well. So, theoretically it is possible to rewrite just this one game.
Holy hell. NO. :rolleyes:
Payback is not nearly as demanding as SM64-- and it pushes far less raw polygons.DaveC said:
Last edited by a moderator:
daclassicgamingmaster
It Is Your Birthday.
niiice im quoted by someone now. No more prozac for me!
Last edited by a moderator:
RockOut
Member
[/quote]Mario 64 would run perfectly well on the GP2X IF it were actually coded for the GP2X.
Holy hell. NO.
Holy hell. NO.
If it hasn't been done, then how would we really know either way? :lol: Anyway, the DS definitely has aslower cpus than the GP2X. Doesn't it?
Edit: I'm giving up on trying to get the quoting thing to work correctly.
Epicenter
Well-Known Member
It also has DEDICATED 3D HARDWARE
Last edited by a moderator:
Blah
Wanna Be Programmer
Its possible, I guess, just look at egoboo2x. But its very improbable because you'd never get the source from Nintendo. You'd have to rewrite it from scratch so you'd have to be a really good coder and have obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Parkydr
Developing for the GP2X since 2006
Egoboo is not anywhere near as complex as SM64 - it ain't going to happen.
(although I'd love to be proved wrong)
(although I'd love to be proved wrong
)Epicenter
Well-Known Member
Egoboo is an EXTREMELY PRIMITIVE game graphically. And to quote the thread ..
That includes absolutely no dynamic lighting. Making for something roughly the rendering workload of a PSX game. I reiterate.
SM64 wouldn't ever work acceptably, period.
That includes absolutely no dynamic lighting. Making for something roughly the rendering workload of a PSX game. I reiterate.
SM64 wouldn't ever work acceptably, period.
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
He can't comprehend that there are more than 2 dimensions.
Last edited by a moderator:
rixed said:
rixed said:
So tell me this engine isn't still in its infancy? Rixed had said these things and as he is the actual coder of this, I think it rather qualifies him. gpu940 will improve if work is continued on it. I very much suspect that we may have a decent 3d implementation, using a piece of hitherto unused hardware, the 940t. It will never be as good as a true hardware 3d chip(of a modern nature), but it will likely be a decent level of 3d performance.rixed said:
As regards N64, well, I will not say impossible, but it is so very very unlikely, that it is probably best to think of it that way. Don't hope for it or expect it or look for it. And if it does ever happen, it will probably not be entirely satisfactory. Nay saying is just a little more risky than saying something is very highly unlikely - I wouldn't encourage it.
Edit; add a few more highly unlikely's in there, just refreshed my memory on the N64 hardware. Source code is very unlikely to happen too, unless it is somehow leaked to us..
Edit2; Also it would take a madman to attempt it - of course they also exist, but rarely accomplish much. Apparently the processor is mostly used in 32-bit data mode too, and I'm sure for a lot of games the cpu could be clocked at half that 93.75. The sound hardware is overkill too for how much went on a cartridge... But still totally mad to undertake. In case you're wondering where I'm quoting all this info from take a look at wikipedia. It looks a lot like the N64 was a bit crippled by the cartridges... Hmm and texture size - ooops! This has no bearing on how easy it would be to emulate of course. Wait the gp2x isn't the only piece of flawed hardware....
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong. SM64 doesn't have many Polygons. It's also missing most of fancy light effects the 3D Engine from Payback has.
SM64 is pretty simple regarding 3D stuff, it makes use of the comic Mario graphic, therefore, you won't need many details, simply a lot of good-looking textures.
Games like SM64 would run on the gp2x, if coded for it directly.
Last edited:
Epicenter
Well-Known Member
In most cases, SM64 draws more polygons than Payback does-- and the way the camera is oriented ensures more objects onscreen are visible, and more of the environment as well-- due to the prevalent 'behind the player' angle that shows the whole world, rather than the 'overhead with a slight tilt' Payback uses that generally points right down on the player or his vehicle, which is quite low-detail to begin with.
I also would not describe SM64 as having 'a lot of good-looking textures'. The biggest problem the N64 had was its support for only lower-resolution textures which were then stretched across huge surfaces for a rather nasty appearance.
If SM64 were recompiled for the GP2X, even if it were all written in efficient ARM9 ASM, it would still be very slow. Even with 2 fast CPUs, the fact that the 2D subsystem has no support for DMA means such terrible things happen as the 920T having to copy graphic data between Main RAM and the blitter to be drawn to the framebuffer, which the 920T has to ALSO facilitate because the framebuffer is ALSO in main RAM (the upper 32MB) which the blitter can't access directly (it isn't dedicated to it).. same for any communication that goes to/from the 940T, which badly bottlenecks 3D performance using things like a software OpenGL implementation on that processor. Not to mention that if any data can't fit in Main RAM and must stream off the SD card, the CPU will go to 100% capacity whenever it does so, grinding base processing on the 920T, 940T/920T intercommunication, and graphics drawing operations to a standstill. These and other factors combine to make the GP2X remarkably unsuitable for 3D. The 920T simply can't handle the stress of acting as the arbiter for the entire machine AND trying to do any useful work on its own.
You wouldn't want to play such a port and neither would I ..
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh Epi, why do you always try to make the gp2x worse than it is.
Some technical stuff about the NDS 3D-System:
"The system is theoretically capable of rendering 120,000 triangles per second at 60 frames per second and the pixel fill rate is 30 million pixels per second. Unlike most 3D hardware, it has a limit on the number of triangles it can render as part of a single scene; this limit is somewhere in the region of 4000 triangles. The 3D hardware is designed to render to a single screen at a time, so rendering 3D to both screens is difficult and decreases performance significantly."
And now some tech specs from Payback (from the comparison, taken from Apex-Designs.net):
"Thanks to the GP2X's processing power and lots of optimisation, rendering performance was massively increased compared to the GBA (all figures are with no overclocking, the GP2X's are with HDR, the GBA's are in 8-bit):
Peak Pixels/sec (GBA): Plain: 13,100,000 --- Texture Mapped: 71,100
Peak Pixels/sec (GP2X): Plain: 61,835,000 --- Texture Mapped: 33,537,000
Peak Triangles/sec (GBA): Plain: 71,100 --- Texture Mapped: 36,200
Peak Triangles/sec (GP2X): Plain: 609,756 --- Texture Mapped: 609,756
So... you think about 600.000 texture mapped triangles a second compared to 120.000 (limited to about 4000) is NOT enough?!
Some technical stuff about the NDS 3D-System:
"The system is theoretically capable of rendering 120,000 triangles per second at 60 frames per second and the pixel fill rate is 30 million pixels per second. Unlike most 3D hardware, it has a limit on the number of triangles it can render as part of a single scene; this limit is somewhere in the region of 4000 triangles. The 3D hardware is designed to render to a single screen at a time, so rendering 3D to both screens is difficult and decreases performance significantly."
And now some tech specs from Payback (from the comparison, taken from Apex-Designs.net):
"Thanks to the GP2X's processing power and lots of optimisation, rendering performance was massively increased compared to the GBA (all figures are with no overclocking, the GP2X's are with HDR, the GBA's are in 8-bit):
Peak Pixels/sec (GBA): Plain: 13,100,000 --- Texture Mapped: 71,100
Peak Pixels/sec (GP2X): Plain: 61,835,000 --- Texture Mapped: 33,537,000
Peak Triangles/sec (GBA): Plain: 71,100 --- Texture Mapped: 36,200
Peak Triangles/sec (GP2X): Plain: 609,756 --- Texture Mapped: 609,756
So... you think about 600.000 texture mapped triangles a second compared to 120.000 (limited to about 4000) is NOT enough?!
reiboul
Peace sells... but who's buying?
Last edited by a moderator:
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
I don't believes Apex's figures, but I do indeed like payback.. i wish they'd fix those damn bugs so i can buy it!
...And I say all of this is a pointless argument. For one SM64 will never be re-made for the GP2X anyway so it doesn't matter if it could be done or not.
Also who really cares, the GP2X is not a 3D handheld anyway and it's strength is in 2D homebrew and emus, ports. If you want fancy 3D that is what the PSP or DS is for.
Also who really cares, the GP2X is not a 3D handheld anyway and it's strength is in 2D homebrew and emus, ports. If you want fancy 3D that is what the PSP or DS is for.
Oh boy... you too, sam?
Okay. Go away. Go all away, enjoy living in a nice marketing world, where Sony and Nintendo tell you they have the best hardware.
Believe everything Sony and Nintendo tells you and think that small companies and developers are lying to you - simply because Sony and Nintendo HAS to be better.
Don't even believe anything I do say, as I'm neither a guy from Sony and Nintendo.
I'm sure the PSP and DS is fast enough to emulate your brains though... shouldn't be hard, as you don't seem to use them at all.
Last edited:
- Status
