Possible Ports For The Gpx2

[no_skill]

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

 

[no_skill]

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*

 

[Cyclops]

*thinking of the huge use of assembler in gp32 software to optimize things*
*crying*

​

Go high-level languages, common API's

 

[Cyclops]

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

 

[no_skill]

why exactly do you think it is?

 

[Cyclops]

why exactly do you think it is?

​

http://sourceforge.net/projects/gpquake/ no reason

 

[no_skill]

# 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.

 

[woogal]

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.

 

[Huxley]

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

 

[Sonic-NKT]

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..

 

[no_skill]

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.

 

[White Demon]

how do you know this? ;P don't talk if you have no idea.

​

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.

 

[no_skill]

still a random assumption thrown in.

 

[Sonic-NKT]

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.

 

[Cyclops]

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.

 

[abigsmurf]

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

 

[Sonic-NKT]

dont forget the FPU which the gpx2 has

 

[Puck2099]

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

 

[Sonic-NKT]

perhaps the zaurus exult port could help you here...

 

[Tobriand]

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.