View Full Version : Emulators for nextgen consoles - is it possible?
Laa-Yosh
06-Dec-2002, 16:55
This is an issue I've been confronted with from time to time. I'll state my own opinion right at the beginning: I think that even the Xbox is too hard to emulate on PC hardware for several more years to come. And by the time the machines will be fast enough, Xbox2 and PS3 will already be available and current consoles will be thrown away for less than 99$...
However, I'd like to know your opinions as well. Knowing that there are several developers, I'd be interested to hear what others think about this issue; like, just what kind of a system would be needed to emulate any current console? Aren't there too many hardware features that could only be emulated in software? Will we ever see a working Xbox/PS2/GC emulator?
I've been to this site once, that claims to be on the best way of emulating PS2, but as of now they were only able to emulate the CPU Core and run a few FMV sequences (taken from demos AFAIK). At some point, the people working on it said that they haven't begun emulating the VUs yet, as it is all very complicated and they don't see any PCs being able to handle it until a few years from now.
CaptainHowdy
06-Dec-2002, 17:03
its certainly possible, its just not going to be easy, Xbox and GC would most likely be the easiest to emulate on a PC, I would not hold my breath for either though.
And they don't see any PCs being able to handle it until a few years from now.
Speed is not a function of emulation, only processing and manipulating the data in the same way.
Yes, in a sence, it would be possible to emulate the NGC's at greatly reduced preformance and at a very costly price.
Tagrineth
06-Dec-2002, 20:11
Yeah, all three current big consoles could be emulated...
But consider old consoles.
Just as an example, the first 3D console with incredibly poor 3D quality and a 33.4MHz 32-bit CPU is now ~95% emulated. Even on my 800MHz P3 / Kyro II - WAY above PSX's specs - my frame rate isn't perfect.
It's going to be a good 2 years before PC's are capable of emulating the current consoles at a decent speed... let alone FULL speed.
Even DreamCast emulation is just barely visible.
I've seen people trying to save a bit of money by not buying the actual console, but playing emus instead. Funny thing is, the upgrade they had to do to their PC to play the emus cost more than they could've bought the real thing.
Emulation of old school consoles is cool, but emuwarez simply sucks for one reason or another.
Even DreamCast emulation is just barely visible.
Maybe if allot more people had Kyro II boards we'd see more DC emu's? Allot of cards would probably have a hard time with some of the overdraw levels present in DC games. Just a theory.
I've seen people trying to save a bit of money by not buying the actual console, but playing emus instead. Funny thing is, the upgrade they had to do to their PC to play the emus cost more than they could've bought the real thing.
Still, to look on the bright side at least they get to use those upgrades for more then just the emulator.
I play PES2 on a PSX emu and I didn't have to upgrade anything to play it. I only had to buy the game for £15 (retail), much cheaper then buying the game plus console and it looks loads better then it would on a actual PSX.
Emulation of old school consoles is cool, but emuwarez simply sucks for one reason or another.
Just because someone is emulating a newer console then, say, Megadrive or SNES doesn't make it warez. You can emulate a PSX with the retail game as I do.
To be honest I think there's loads more people playing copies of PSX games on the actual PSX then on emu's.
zidane1strife
07-Dec-2002, 04:31
Hey talking about emus... any of u guys know what the best psx emulator would be for these games:
Final Fantasy tactics
Legend of Dragoon
Chrono Cross
Final Fantasy 4
Castlevania
Wild Arms
XENOGEARS(yes best game evar...)
PS thanks in advance, i'm looking to buy the few games i couldn't buy for psx in the past....(Oh, yeah my main concern is loading speed-tactics- and stability.)
FF4, get zSNES, a FFIV hardtype rom, and the translation patch. Same goes for FF V.
I personally own the FF Collections for PSX, but the load time and memory card hassle keeps me going back to the emu. And no, the CGs arent worth it :P
zidane1strife
07-Dec-2002, 04:49
Yeah i know, just completing my psx collection... I've already beaten those ff games(not tactics)... My prob with tactics is the loading... I remember it was like 30-40sec, I can't tolerate that for a 60HR+ game... NO way...
This is an issue I've been confronted with from time to time. I'll state my own opinion right at the beginning: I think that even the Xbox is too hard to emulate on PC hardware for several more years to come. And by the time the machines will be fast enough, Xbox2 and PS3 will already be available and current consoles will be thrown away for less than 99$...
However, I'd like to know your opinions as well. Knowing that there are several developers, I'd be interested to hear what others think about this issue; like, just what kind of a system would be needed to emulate any current console? Aren't there too many hardware features that could only be emulated in software? Will we ever see a working Xbox/PS2/GC emulator?
Woah, hang on a sec - Why couldn't you emulate an Xbox with a 64 meg Geforce 4? Same number of Vertex units, identical instructions - the only thing you'd need to emulate is the sound, which isn't too bad.
Considering the whole thing is based around DirectX and PC specs, I imagine Xbox would be trivial to emulate compared to other consoles.
Problem is, how are you going to emulate the OS, which is a modified version of windows (something nobody has the source code for) and how are you going to emulate the bandwidth between the GPU, and main memory when you have to go through AGP? Not exactly easy to get around that.
Quincy
I don't see the problem there (the second thing you mentioned). Yeah Xbox has a good amount of bandwidth between its GPU and main ram with no AGP bus. But then it only has 64mb of main ram. So a 64mb graphics card could hold everything a XBox can just in video ram. Anything needed just for the CPU (game code) could be left in the PC's system ram and anything needed for the GPU could be stored in video ram on the graphics card before running the game, then the AGP bus wouldn't matter at all.
Or if that's too complicated you could just put everything (even game code) in video ram and send game code to the CPU over the AGP bus, after all XBox's CPU bus is only 1gb anyway so a AGP bus could handle that couldn't it?
CaptainHowdy
07-Dec-2002, 16:23
Problem is, how are you going to emulate the OS, which is a modified version of windows (something nobody has the source code for) and how are you going to emulate the bandwidth between the GPU, and main memory when you have to go through AGP? Not exactly easy to get around that.
a Radeon 9700 with 8X AGP has twice the bandwidth of the Xbox GPU, so thats not a problem, I think its very doable once the NV30 gets here, and more people have either it or the 9700.
Reznor007
07-Dec-2002, 16:28
Problem is, how are you going to emulate the OS, which is a modified version of windows (something nobody has the source code for) and how are you going to emulate the bandwidth between the GPU, and main memory when you have to go through AGP? Not exactly easy to get around that.
Emulating the OS doesn't matter at all. All you do is emulate the CPU at register level. Much the same way PC emulators are able to run Windows.
Teasy,
But then it only has 64mb of main ram. So a 64mb graphics card could hold everything a XBox can just in video ram. Anything needed just for the CPU (game code) could be left in the PC's system ram and anything needed for the GPU could be stored in video ram on the graphics card before running the game, then the AGP bus wouldn't matter at all.
That would hardly be easy to perform. You'd need to update the data in both areas at the same time (PC system memory and video memory) Either way you look at it, you'll need to go across AGP. For one thing the GPU on xbox can actually perform the loading of geometry, not to mention handling memory accesses. Which again won't be easy to emulate.
The only way to properly emulate this would be to use a Nforce mother board since the layout is similar to Xbox. However the video chip they use on nforce boards aren't nearly as powerful, and you still have the bandwidth issue.
Or if that's too complicated you could just put everything (even game code) in video ram and send game code to the CPU over the AGP bus, after all XBox's CPU bus is only 1gb anyway so a AGP bus could handle that couldn't it?
I don't think so. To answer that question, ask yourself why PC developers haven't been doing that already if there was any performance benefit in doing that. I've thought about this before in a conversation regarding the same topic. There was a good reason why this wasn't feasible, but I don't recall that reason now.
look, at it this way, you can emulate anything that's out there, it just depends on how FAST you want that emulation to be. Without the proper amount of bandwidth, and not having the hardware layed out in a way that is similar, will lead to some slow emulation.
Captainhowdy,
Radeon 9700 with 8X AGP has twice the bandwidth of the Xbox GPU, so thats not a problem,
Um, between main system memory and the gpu? no it doesn't.
Laa-Yosh
07-Dec-2002, 18:28
Quincy
Or if that's too complicated you could just put everything (even game code) in video ram and send game code to the CPU over the AGP bus, after all XBox's CPU bus is only 1gb anyway so a AGP bus could handle that couldn't it?
And what about the cases where the CPU has to touch the contents of the framebuffer memory? I know that Halo has a few effects with that trick...
It's not easy as say...letting Kyro2 do everything DC does or GF4 do everything X-box do. The architectural difference between consoles and PCs are more than enough obstacles for straight through 'hardware' emulation. For DC emulation, emulating the CPU will be the biggest priority. (emulating the CPU is basically the idea of software emulation)
It's just as Fafalada says. Not even ePSXe is nearly as complete as the hardware one PSX2 offers. And while we are looking at perfect speed for PSX and N64, we still have Saturn emu hovering at 10FPS on P4 2gig.
About the distinction between classic emulation and emu-warez, I was basing it on morality. (my mistake on missing the point about legal use of latest emulator) Pirating classic games barely hurt than compared to say..any GBA game.
Maybe I gradually developed the negative attitude towards emus. I was emulation fan since it's heyday about 1997. but most emulation sites I visit are now filled with ROM/ISO beggars. :(
And what about the cases where the CPU has to touch the contents of the framebuffer memory? I know that Halo has a few effects with that trick...
What about them? Doesn't the XBox's CPU have a 1gb/s bus to main ram?.. which is the same bandwidth you get from the AGP bus.
Not that I am sure this is all possible, I just don't see a problem with what you just mentioned.
Having the CPU modify contents of the frame buffer is incredibly slow on a PC. You'd be better off software rendering if you really wanted to do that.
Dave Baumann
08-Dec-2002, 00:25
Even DreamCast emulation is just barely visible.
Maybe if allot more people had Kyro II boards we'd see more DC emu's? Allot of cards would probably have a hard time with some of the overdraw levels present in DC games. Just a theory.
I'm sure if Simon had seen this thread he would have pointed out that the lack of VQ compression (which, IIRC, many/most DC titles actually used) would be the biggest stumbling block for the use of KYRO based boards. That being the case most current 3D boards are more powerful than KYROII and would do the job just as well.
I know that Geforce 4 and especially Radeon 9700 would be faster then Kyro II even with high overdraw, but cards like that are too expensive to be widespread. Emu's are made when they can be handled by most lower end cards out there. I was just saying that if Kyro II was the low end card of choice for most people we may have more DC emu's.
I know that Geforce 4 and especially Radeon 9700 would be faster then Kyro II even with high overdraw, but cards like that are too expensive to be widespread. Emu's are made when they can be handled by most lower end cards out there. I was just saying that if Kyro II was the low end card of choice for most people we may have more DC emu's.
But (generally speaking) is the problem with emulation performance to do with the fillrate of video card though?
Hmmm, I really don't know for sure. But the real difference in DC is the video part isn't it? The CPU isn't anything out of the ordinary AFAIK. But as I say I don't really know for sure, maybe I'm totally wrong. I just think that Kyro II would be a better fit for a DC emu then most other cards out there.
Dave Baumann
08-Dec-2002, 01:49
Emu's are made when they can be handled by most lower end cards out there.
Errr, I would have thought that EMU's would generally have reasonable high spec PC hardware in mind to make the task easier. You'd only really 'targer' low end graphics if you intend to try an make this commercial - yo my knowledge only 'Bleem' has attempted this and I don't really forsee it happening again.
To my mind EMU builders are the sort who like to hack into hardware and then recode that elsewhere. And this is where I think the problem lies right now - is there the interest in the PC market for that to occur? With the PS2 Linux kit and people trying to circumvent MS's XBox security changes all the time I think quite a lot of the people who'd do this have their attention diverted.
Tagrineth
08-Dec-2002, 20:00
Hmmm, I really don't know for sure. But the real difference in DC is the video part isn't it? The CPU isn't anything out of the ordinary AFAIK. But as I say I don't really know for sure, maybe I'm totally wrong. I just think that Kyro II would be a better fit for a DC emu then most other cards out there.
An SH-4 not out of the ordinary? What? It isn't even remotely x86-compatible...
Fafalada
08-Dec-2002, 20:28
I'm sure if Simon had seen this thread he would have pointed out that the lack of VQ compression (which, IIRC, many/most DC titles actually used) would be the biggest stumbling block for the use of KYRO based boards.
VQ compression can be emulated relatively easily if the chip supports dependant texture lookups (iirc, Kyro does). (Actually you can emulate it without it too, but it'd be difficult to make a "transparent" interface to it with other methods).
I don't see any such easy way to handle modifier volumes though, with Kyro or any other card. I agree though, more powerful chips should make things easier.
Anyway, the charm of emulation for me has been the nostalgia factor related with bringing older hw to life again. Particularly since even with 10-15 years headstart, those emus are still far from perfect - they aren't a proper replacement for the real thing - if you can still get one.
Reznor007
09-Dec-2002, 01:55
[quote]Anyway, the charm of emulation for me has been the nostalgia factor related with bringing older hw to life again. Particularly since even with 10-15 years headstart, those emus are still far from perfect - they aren't a proper replacement for the real thing - if you can still get one.
Yeah, I'm into it more for nostalgia and as a technical thing. Emulating the early 3d Atari games(Hard Divin/Race Drivin and Steel Talons) was VERY complicated.
And even though I have access to almost any old game using MAME, I still prefer the original(and I own 4 arcade games even though I can play them easily in MAME for free).
Simon F
09-Dec-2002, 08:50
Even DreamCast emulation is just barely visible.
Maybe if allot more people had Kyro II boards we'd see more DC emu's? Allot of cards would probably have a hard time with some of the overdraw levels present in DC games. Just a theory.
I'm sure if Simon had seen this thread he would have pointed out that the lack of VQ compression (which, IIRC, many/most DC titles actually used) would be the biggest stumbling block for the use of KYRO based boards. That being the case most current 3D boards are more powerful than KYROII and would do the job just as well.
I would have said "translucency sorting" or the "modifier volume" support. VQ can 'easily' be emulated by an 8-fold increase in texture size.
Sh-4 was at the time a crazy chip. They modded it for better fp performance if i'm not mistaken. I actually see the xbox being emulated soon. Well before the dreamcast , gamecube and ps2. My rig should easily play any x box games(athlon xp 2000+ , 1gig of ddr333 , ati radeon 9700 pro.) Remember xbox games play at a very low res
Laa-Yosh
10-Dec-2002, 21:54
If this info is true about the NV2A (and why shouldn't it be) then I don't think any ordinary PC graphics card could emulate the Xbox hardware...
I wouldn't really consider it something less. All it lacks in comparison to the GF4 is basically LMAII and Accuview, but it keeps the quad-cache and gains certain geometry features that are present in the NV30 (one I know of being the ability to make signed stencil buffer additions). I also believe the NV2A may have more static instructions and constants.
I've heard that the NV25 is not capable of collision detection on-chip using vertex shaders. I do remember the devs for Wreckless saying that the NV2A's vertex shaders could in fact be used for collision detection, something that the NV30 is able to do.
Original post by DeathKnight on the 3D Hardware forum here ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.