Beta Uae4All Additions

[john4p]

What you describe is what happens with Project-X Special Edition 93.

This works fine with FAME/C here.
It hangs with Cyclone.

Just tried that, too.

The standard Project-X doesn't start level 1 with either core.


I also compared my sources now again with yours. The core components are identical.

I don't believe the standard Project-X works in your port with FAME/C.

Your ADFs must be Project-X Special Edition.
(You won't see a difference at the title screen - they both just write "PROJECT-X" as title.)

Project-X != Project-X Special Edition

The revised version has shorter levels and is notably easier (still challenging - just more balanced).

 

[smoku]

Your ADFs must be Project-X Special Edition.
(You won't see a difference at the title screen - they both just write "PROJECT-X" as title.)

This might be the case.
Is there a way to check it?

 

[john4p]

Project-X: "Accessing Disk" is the first thing that gets displayed (after the cracker-screen) when loading (cracks are from Skid Row and Nemesis).

Project-X Special Edition 93: Before "Accessing Disk" there's a (flickering) Team 17-logo displayed (the working crack tested is from Ministry - the cracktro also writes PROJECT X - SPECIAL EDITION).

 

[john4p]

Well, just tried Project-X with UAE core and it works.

So now we have a reason to release all 3 versions in the future: with FAME/C-, Cyclone- and UAE-core.

Note that UAE core is the slowest of the 3. But overclocked to 750 MHz (maybe less) you can still play Project-X fullspeed (no frameskip, VSYNC, clear sound).

 

[smoku]

Project-X: "Accessing Disk" is the first thing that gets displayed (after the cracker-screen) when loading (cracks are from Skid Row and Nemesis).

Project-X Special Edition 93: Before "Accessing Disk" there's a (flickering) Team 17-logo displayed (the working crack tested is from Ministry - the cracktro also writes PROJECT X - SPECIAL EDITION).

Mine is from Skid Row, cracked by FFC/FASTEST.
And I don't have Team17 logo before "Accessing Disk".
Nothing about Special Edition in cracktro.

 

[john4p]

Project-X: "Accessing Disk" is the first thing that gets displayed (after the cracker-screen) when loading (cracks are from Skid Row and Nemesis).

Project-X Special Edition 93: Before "Accessing Disk" there's a (flickering) Team 17-logo displayed (the working crack tested is from Ministry - the cracktro also writes PROJECT X - SPECIAL EDITION).

Mine is from Skid Row, cracked by FFC/FASTEST.
And I don't have Team17 logo before "Accessing Disk".
Nothing about Special Edition in cracktro.

Yes, well - you don't have FAME/C active in your latest N900-release. With UAE core it works (see post above).

Updated compatibility list.

Maybe Jimmy White and Goal work with UAE core, too (like Project-X they also don't work with Cyclone and FAME/C)...

 

[john4p]

New release: "3 cores & 3 control modes"

• Joystick- and Mouse/Pinball-modes are now like before again
• added 3rd control mode: Stylus/Arrowkeys (dpad = arrowkeys)
• added 3rd M68K core: "UAE core" => select now between fast FAME/C or Cyclone or the more compatible UAE core

Cyclone is the fastest core (500-550 MHz mostly sufficient for fullspeed emulation), but doesn't support savestates.
FAME/C is almost as fast (550-650 MHz for fullspeed emulation) and supports savestates.
UAE core is the slowest (750+ MHz for fullspeed emulation), but a bit more compatible and also supports savestates.


Grab the new version here: http://www.filefront.com/17176052/uae4all.zip


Source: http://www.filefront.com/17176055/uae4all_pandora_src.zip


Here's a replacement runme.sh which automatically sets CPU Speed to 750MHz for UAE core and all the softstretch modes, 600MHz for FAME/C (in doubled pixels mode) and sets the CPU Speed back to 500MHz when you exit UAE4All:
View attachment 457

 

[smoku]

Yes, well - you don't have FAME/C active in your latest N900-release. With UAE core it works (see post above).

Now I'm confused.

First you said that I have FAME core in N900 version, that's why I do not see any difference to the Cyclone core version.
Now you say that I don't have FAME core in N900 version, that's why Project X is working fine.

Which core is it then?

 

[EvilDragon]

Nice

PND'ed

 

[john4p]

@smoku: I assumed you had FAME/C core active in your N900-port because you said Project-X was working with FAME-core in your version.

But it's deactivated in your current Makefile - so UAE core gets utilized instead of FAME/C.

Since it's working in your version and our sources are mostly identical and Project-X only works with UAE core in our version (while it doesn't work with FAME/C or Cyclone) I'm sure the version you're using uses UAE core (and not FAME/C).

PND'ed

Thanks!

 

[TitanUranus]

I was just wondering, could/would you map the nubs both as joysticks, with a keyboard key/button close to them as a fire button so that 2 people could play something like "Extreme Violence"? Maybe this would be awkward, but I'd really like to splatter my mates brains all over the ground when I get my Pandora... metaphorically speaking of course.

Actually, if this worked out ok, it'd be good for other emulators too - I like the idea of kicking his ass at "IK+" and popping his tyres on "Pitstop 2" which would be great fun on the C64. It might be a pain if you were both right handed (or the slightly less likely scenario you were both left handed) but since I'm fairly ambedexterous I'll shoot his big smug head whichever side of me he's sitting.

 

[smoku]

@smoku: I assumed you had FAME/C core active in your N900-port because you said Project-X was working with FAME-core in your version.

So why I don't see any difference in speed to FAME or Cyclone version?

 

[silver]

This is what happens with Cyclone core on N900. It prints a message of unsupported branching or something. That's why I dropped Cyclone.

There is nothing I can see in the latest Cyclone code that spits out an "unsupported" message to the console. It's also regarded as complete apart from prefetch emulation & unknown bugs.

The only thing I can see in uae4all & your n900 uae4all (from the github) that does spit out anything with the word "unsupported" is "Disk write in unsupported format" in disk.cpp

The FAME and (MUSASHI) core's have an exception cycle table that lists "FP Branch or Set on Unknown Condition" - this is listed as unemulated in some versions of the Musashi core, but I presume is emulated in uae4all...

i.e. Not sure that error message is coming from the Cyclone core. If you could check exactly what the message is, might help tracking it down...?

 

[God Ginrai]

@smoku: I assumed you had FAME/C core active in your N900-port because you said Project-X was working with FAME-core in your version.

So why I don't see any difference in speed to FAME or Cyclone version?

Didn't we go over this like... 10 pages back? I thought it was decided that the reason you weren't seeing any difference in speed was because the core was not a bottleneck for your uae4all.

-God Ginrai

 

[john4p]

@smoku: I assumed you had FAME/C core active in your N900-port because you said Project-X was working with FAME-core in your version.

So why I don't see any difference in speed to FAME or Cyclone version?

Probably because you don't clock your N900 to 500 or 600 MHz.

At 750+ MHz even with UAE core 50fps can be emulated and drawn in time (so no visible difference then).

I was just wondering, could/would you map the nubs both as joysticks, with a keyboard key/button close to them as a fire button so that 2 people could play something like "Extreme Violence"?

I'd have to deactivate the mouse input from Linux on the nubs (and activate it again when you leave that mode) and then read their input. Also emulating a 2nd joystick would afford some more additional changes to the joystick-emulation source.
Sorry - that's too much hassle for something I can't imagine really being fun on such a tiny device.

 

[smoku]

So why I don't see any difference in speed to FAME or Cyclone version?

Probably because you don't clock your N900 to 500 or 600 MHz.

My N900 is clocked at 600MHz.
It has a lot of background tasks and PulseAudio server running - I guess a lot less than Pandora OS.
Why then UAE-core underperforms on Pandora and is fine on N900?

I would like to understand why there is so much difference in UAE4ALL performance to standard E-UAE.
If it's the CPU emulation - it might be worth porting the core to E-UAE.
If it's not the core (apparently) than what?
OCS emulation? I don't think so - it's so similar code that I was able to directly copy-paste code from E-UAE to fix EHB and HAM modes.

I was going to port more features from E-UAE, but maybe it would be more reasonable to just fix E-UAE.

 

[Iorgy77]

I was going to port more features from E-UAE, but maybe it would be more reasonable to just fix E-UAE.

This man needs a pandora.

 

[john4p]

My N900 is clocked at 600MHz.
It has a lot of background tasks and PulseAudio server running - I guess a lot less than Pandora OS.
Why then UAE-core underperforms on Pandora and is fine on N900?

Tried Project-X again with UAE core at 600 MHz. Yes, that's already sufficient for fullspeed here, too.
So I'm sure there is no speed difference between our versions.

But there are some games where the difference between UAE core and FAME/C (or Cyclone) is a bit more apparent.
When I tested the ancient title "Superstar Ice Hockey" that ran notably slower with UAE core (but it could be I've let the CPU speed at 500 MHz back then).

 

[silver]

Why then UAE-core underperforms on Pandora and is fine on N900?

I would like to understand why there is so much difference in UAE4ALL performance to standard E-UAE.
If it's the CPU emulation - it might be worth porting the core to E-UAE.
If it's not the core (apparently) than what?
OCS emulation? I don't think so - it's so similar code that I was able to directly copy-paste code from E-UAE to fix EHB and HAM modes.

I was going to port more features from E-UAE, but maybe it would be more reasonable to just fix E-UAE.

Your performance queries do sound odd - are you confident about which core is being used? Some profiling should show where all the time is being spent, so you could see if time spent in cyclone vs UAE is significantly different or not, or if everything is just spend on the custom chipset emulation...


On the E-UAE note, have you looked at P-UAE? substantially changed with all the latest WinUAE emulation updates. (Gnostic is trying to sync it with WinUAE). It was still a bit WIP when I last looked, but apparantly very nice when working... - http://github.com/GnoStiC/PUAE

 

[smoku]

Your performance queries do sound odd - are you confident about which core is being used?

I was pretty sure I was using UAE core, until john4p invalidated that statement.

Some profiling should show where all the time is being spent, so you could see if time spent in cyclone vs UAE is significantly different or not, or if everything is just spend on the custom chipset emulation...

gprof is showing that most of the time is taken by graphics emulation.
I should investigate more how much different is UAE4ALL OCS emulation to UAE. While porting fixes I got an impression that it is not that different.

On the E-UAE note, have you looked at P-UAE? substantially changed with all the latest WinUAE emulation updates. (Gnostic is trying to sync it with WinUAE). It was still a bit WIP when I last looked, but apparantly very nice when working... - http://github.com/GnoStiC/PUAE

Thanks for the link.