I was thinking about the ps2 hardware chip excluded from new ps3s ( I forget what it is called) and I was thinking back to emulators, and particularly things like bleem. With PS3 firmware updates and new software and such, do you think it would be possible for the ps2 emulation to be a lot better than the chip in the future? I am also trying to decide whether to get one of the new ps3s or an older one. I can remeber running bleem on my old computer and ps1 games look a lot better, as they could render much better.
PS3 PS2 emulation
- Thread starter dukajoe
- Start date
It seems unlikely at this point that PS3 will receive a full software BC solution. Talk from Sony is that they'd rather spend their efforts elsewhere. The real incentive is Nitendo-like 'resell all your old games in the super profitable download' model, but that is more for a couple of generations back. PS2 titles will be large downloads which will limit their appeal. So, PS1 emulation, and hopefully improvements to that emulator, sure. But PS2 emulation this gen? I sadly think not. Kutaragi's dream is no more 
That was what we were hoping for before PS3 was released. The fact they managed it with PS2 emulating PS1 just goes to show a single incident doesn't set reliable precedent!
PS2 didn't emulate the PS1, it included all the required hardware from the PS1.
Unlike the PS3 though, when not in use for running PS1 games, the PS1 CPU ran features in the PS2. The PS1 CPU was was used as the I/O controller if I recall correctly.
If the guys coding PCSX2 can get decent results using PC technology there is no reason to believe that the PS3 couldn't fully emulate the PS2 in software alone.
It might be too much work for Sony to bother with, but I think it's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.
Unlike the PS3 though, when not in use for running PS1 games, the PS1 CPU ran features in the PS2. The PS1 CPU was was used as the I/O controller if I recall correctly.
If the guys coding PCSX2 can get decent results using PC technology there is no reason to believe that the PS3 couldn't fully emulate the PS2 in software alone.
It might be too much work for Sony to bother with, but I think it's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.
My PS3 is doing fine with PS2 games thank you. Don't think they've cut out BC for the future just because they have out of the 40gb model...unless you believe everything Sony says, until they then announce another model. Do not be fooled.
I got a itchy feeling that they will include 100% software emulation sometime in the future, why it didnt come now well the theories are plenty, but some I have heard are:
1. PS3 owners buy PS2 instead of PS3 games, which is plausible, since there has been very few PS3 games available until now.
2. They are resource strapped and need to focus on other areas now, ie the 40GB sku just came to early or feedback from the market made them rellocate engineer, ie from emulation to in-game xmb type features etc.
But as I said, I wont be to surprised if it shows up in FW 2.5 or 3.0 etc
I also think there's a good chance Sony is still plugging away at a pure software PS2 emulator which they hope can be introduced in a future firmware update. Frankly the cost of employing a small team of emulator programmers isn't very much in the grand scheme of things. They cut the feature from the 40gig sku to cut the price. There's no reason to take their explanations that seriously, especially when they claim to be diverting internal resources. Really? Four devs in a room will make or break SCE? It's just PR spin to deemphasize PS2 game support. But they want that bullet point back.
Mefisutoferesu
Regular
Well, IIRC, I remember Faf mentioning that the hardware BC we got in the PS3 was a last minute thing and that originally it was supposed to be software. Or, maybe it was SMM??? Anyway, Sony had to rush a lot of things at the launch and we're seeing things that weren't supposed to be and there are things that are still to come, so I think, hopefully, it'll eventually happen.
Color me Dan
Regular
Possibly they'll just hope everyone will go and buy their soon to come slimmer-then-slim edition of the PS2 for under 99
I've said as much before, and the claims of cost appear to just be to dowse expectations. BUT...if they were confident of getting BC, wouldn't they have said 'we'll have it in a firmware update?' Maybe not if they want to shift the other SKUs first, but bundles ought to be enough to shift them. We know BC was going to be software only, and Kutaragi said Cell could do it all on its own...and yet nothing in a couple of years, with the eventual open comment 'we've given up'. Maybe they haven't given up, but I'm not confident at this point that we can trust it'll appear. 4 engineers creating a BC engine won't cost much, but also won't necessarily get much return, whereas those four engineers working on something else like PS3 dev tools would be far better for Sony. Thus they could close the operation, perhaps leaving it to a few enthusiast employees poking around at home in their spare time!
Right, it's a difference between being confident and hopeful. My guess is that Sony is hopeful they can eventually produce a pure software emulator. And I think there are economic reasons to continue that pursuit even if it doesn't pan out this generation because they should be able to leverage the experience for the PS4's backwards compatibility.
I don't see backwards compatibility as much of a value, honestly. In the end, it costs them and they have to make cuts elsewhere. How is that good for looking forward for new game tech? You end up with weird concoctions of enhanced old hardware or buggy software implementations that cost engineers time when they could've been doing other things to make new stuff better.
IMO Wii may be the best example of this. It's not even double Cube while being based heavily on the old arch. However, I know there's also an argument here for Wii being entirely based around minimized costs and backwards compat just being icing on the cake.
PS2 and PS3 are stuck with old PS1/PS2 hardware right in the box or as a major part of a "new" architecture. That cost could've gone into something to make the machine better for new stuff (256-bit GDDR3 memory bus, for ex).
You end up paying for the same hardware again, basically, and probably less new tech. If you want to look at it that way.
IMO Wii may be the best example of this. It's not even double Cube while being based heavily on the old arch. However, I know there's also an argument here for Wii being entirely based around minimized costs and backwards compat just being icing on the cake.
PS2 and PS3 are stuck with old PS1/PS2 hardware right in the box or as a major part of a "new" architecture. That cost could've gone into something to make the machine better for new stuff (256-bit GDDR3 memory bus, for ex).
You end up paying for the same hardware again, basically, and probably less new tech. If you want to look at it that way.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, the PS2 has 38.4GB bandwith to it's Frame+Z buffer, split into 19.2GB for read/write each respectively. And for vast majority of cases, a chip like RSX will obliterate GS speed in any normal rendering, including multipass.rickpfeil said:
GS also tends to stall on waiting for geometry/texture a lot, something that RSX emulating PS2 would theoretically never have to do.
The other side of the story is rendering order of display lists, where just dumb execution of 'GS-ordered' commands could easily slow down RSX for orders of magnitude - and working around that could ultimately boil down to the same thing about hand-optimizing games that you said.
Similar threads
