Overclock the n64?
- Thread starter Fox5
- Start date
I'd disagree with that (maybe it wasn't 60 fps, but at least greater than 30). Then again, I was running on UltraHLE at the time, so who knows how accurately it was running it.
UltraHLE isn't so much an emulator as it is a simulator. It doesn't really emulate the graphics chip at all.
Here's some stuff about proper N64 emulation you might find interesting http://moogle-tech.com/blog/?p=37
I tried Wipeout on both the PS3 and PS1. They play the same. I didnt see any enhancements even if I turned on "smoothing"
edit: I couldnt stand many of the N64 games even when they were new. I coudnt stand the fog and super blurriness that was on the majority of its games!!
Hahaha I'm not quite sure what about my post irked you so much. I loved my N64 back in the day and was very dismissive of PSX, I was surprised to see that the latter has held up surprisingly well while the former hasn't. Not sure why this would bug you, but are the snide comments really necessary?
I played some F-Zero X on my Wii as well - 60 fps looks nice, and there's a lot less blurry texturing going on because everything seems to be shaded instead, but it still looks decidedly average compared to some PSX titles had to offer.
I'd be interested in loading up some PSX and N64 titles in emulators and seeing how they compare against each other with framerate, resolution and texture filtering cleaned up. I played through Zelda for a 3rd time via UltraHLE rather than my N64 and I remember it looking pretty schmick at the time.
Good luck finding a 60fps PS1 racer with 30 cars on track.
So in other words, compare the games by running them on a machine that takes away almost all the N64's advantages (perspective correction, load times, trilinear mip-mapping, frame rate in most cross-platform games) and preserves only the PS1's advantages (higher-res textures, better sound). It should be no surprise that the PS1 games will almost all look better. But it's a little bit like emulating the PS2 and the Xbox and comparing Ratchet & Clank with Splinter Cell, except you've somehow modded R&C with normal maps and per-pixel lighting. Back in the 90's, a lot of us were just as in awe of filtered textures (granted, Voodoo graphics did it much better than N64) as many were of normal mapping back in 2003 (come to think of it, GF4 did that much better than Xbox, so it's an apt comparison).
Heh. Well, there's a few things that, even on an emulator, can't be "forced on" on the PSX, like subpixel accuracy. The PSX (and Saturn) only support integer pixel alignment of vertices to the frame buffer. So running a PSX emulator at 1280*960 (with a game that ran at 320*240 / 320*224) will have all of the vertices to aligned to a 4*4 grid, while the N64 won't have that problem, making subtle/slow motions look better on the N64.
Another minor advantage the N64 would still have would be that the textures are designed for bilinear filtering; most PSX games would have texture bleeding/clamping issues if bilinear is forced on.
I don't think RR (Turbo Prop Racing here) had 16 boats on screen at the same time. It was more like the Ridge Racer setup from what I can tell. In F-Zero X, all 30 cars could occupy your field of vision at the same time. Also, F-Zero X kept the 60 fps up in split-screen, although the number of cars was limited to four.
Unlike Ridge Racer, the boats in Rapid Racer werent very far apart. There were stages if I remember correctly where you could see many boats on screen. Also I think F ZERO X environments werent very detailed. Their design was very simple, had few textures, and lots of fog which I think is what enabled the game to run so fast at 60fps.
Yes, they were very simple, but you also had 30 cars on screen at 60 fps, so it's impossible to make a direct comparison. However many boats Rapid Racer had on screen, it wasn't 30 (the most even theoretically possible is 16, and I haven't found any shots with that many), it didn't maintain that frame rate in split screen, and it didn't move nearly as fast, either. Nor was Rapid Racer free of draw-in. You have to compare like with like, and there are plenty of racing games on the N64 that have similar antecedents in terms of speed and number of vehicles on the PS1. F-Zero X simply isn't one of them.
How about that Beetle Buggy Racing game? Wasn't it 60fps?
Well F Zero X didnt have the same effects and detailed backgrounds though
I am pretty sure if it had smaller vehicles and less detailed backgrounds it might have achieved the same feats as F-Zero X
I am going to check it again since I have it
How come some people talk about 480i games having 60fps? I thought that was impossible for interlaced. Even though they're half frames is it still possible for them to have the same fluidity that 60fps brings? I always figured 60i equaled 30fps progressive with 60i having the motion blur that 30fps has although I haven't done much testing myself.
480i can have 60 frames per second, as it displays a field every 1/60th of a second. You just get half the resolution (240 lines). PS2 programmers tried to take advantage of this by making games 60fps games have half-size framebuffers to save space; if the framerate dipped things started looking terrible. The fluidity is definitely there, anyone who has played a game on an SDTV knows that.
I wouldn't say that at all. N64 would benefit greatly from improved (or actual) z-buffers, AF, increased resolution, and fixed framerate (particularly the latter). N64 had a huge problem with games having less than stellar framerates.
It eliminates PS1's advantages of better framerate, that's for sure.
I wouldn't say that at all. N64 would benefit greatly from improved (or actual) z-buffers, AF, increased resolution, and fixed framerate (particularly the latter). N64 had a huge problem with games having less than stellar framerates.
It eliminates PS1's advantages of better framerate, that's for sure.
This is just subjective, but to my eyes 30fps 480i and 480p don't look very different.
60fps 480p and 480i look hugely different though, huge difference in detail.
I'd imagine the same thing would hold for higher resolutions as well, but I don't have a good display to compare on, still using a HD crt.
60fps 480p and 480i look hugely different though, huge difference in detail.
I'd imagine the same thing would hold for higher resolutions as well, but I don't have a good display to compare on, still using a HD crt.
I wish someone would've told me HD CRTs don't really resolve HD resolutions.
I wish someone would've told me HD CRTs don't really resolve HD resolutions.
Heh, on my set, 720p and 1080i look better than 480p, but there's also obviously a lot of noise being introduced into the image and certainly lower detail than a true 720p/1080i set. I can't really say if 720p or 1080i is better, but 1080i does suffer from some interlaced flickering that 720p doesn't have. Detail wise, they don't look much different, though there are instances where 1080i clearly looks better, like upscaled 10 foot interfaces. (I'd imagine more due to a poor quality scaler in the TV, and that the TV probably upscales everything to 1080i)
We have no direct way of knowing. Comparing the performance of hypothetical games in a speculative universe is not particularly fruitful outside of Platonic philosophy.
It wouldn't be an advantage, since PS1 games would get the same benefit.mech said:
In most cross-platform games, it's actually a wash. Off the top of my head, if you compare Rayman 2, THPS 1-3, Ridge Racer, Shadow Man, Forsaken, and Armorines on the two platforms, there's no clear PS1 frame rate advantage. If the PS1 had a real advantage in a game, it was usually textures simply because it didn't have the 4KB limit.
Given Doom had already been out a long time and had 16 KB textures, why on earth did SGI think 4KB was a good idea?
Well for the same reason someone cant bring F Zero X as an example that the PS1 cant do a similar thing.
I mean, there are lots of examples that can be brought on the PS1 that the N64 didnt have anything to compete directly either
Similar threads
