winjer
Gold Member
Something running at 15FPS and impressive? WHAT?
Considering how weak is the GBA and lack of dedicated hardware for 3D, it is very impressive.
Something running at 15FPS and impressive? WHAT?
No it's real. I played it on my GBA through a flash cart.It has to be a fake video playing on the screen, for 1 the resolution seems to be too high.
Iirc, Doom devs had to do a per-line renderer to avoid texture distortion.Since this is all done through software (because the GBA has no 3d hardware), I wonder if similar things could be done on other retro systems. For example, would it be possible to implement things like texture filtering and perspective correction on the PS1 through software? It would be pretty wild to have PS1 games that look like N64 games (or even early Dreamcast games), without pixelated textures and wobbly polygons.
It could be done (via software) but it would be too expensive.Since this is all done through software (because the GBA has no 3d hardware), I wonder if similar things could be done on other retro systems. For example, would it be possible to implement things like texture filtering and perspective correction on the PS1 through software? It would be pretty wild to have PS1 games that look like N64 games (or even early Dreamcast games), without pixelated textures and wobbly polygons.
The PS1 DuckStation emulator has an option to correct affine texture warping as well as the wobbly geometry you see in PS1 games. I normally prefer accurate emulation over enhancements that change the look of a game, but I have to admit these look great and don't ruin the look/feel of the games.Since this is all done through software (because the GBA has no 3d hardware), I wonder if similar things could be done on other retro systems. For example, would it be possible to implement things like texture filtering and perspective correction on the PS1 through software? It would be pretty wild to have PS1 games that look like N64 games (or even early Dreamcast games), without pixelated textures and wobbly polygons.
I have to stress that's a very modern advancement to PSone emulation. It was thought to be impossible due to do how PSone rendering and GPU works.The PS1 DuckStation emulator has an option to correct affine texture warping as well as the wobbly geometry you see in PS1 games. I normally prefer accurate emulation over enhancements that change the look of a game, but I have to admit these look great and don't ruin the look/feel of the games.
Blade Arma did all of that many years before any other emulator, in his plugin gpuBladeSoft: The enhanced geometry (so called PGXP), texture replacement (8 years before Bettle PSX), link cable, etc.The PS1 DuckStation emulator has an option to correct affine texture warping as well as the wobbly geometry you see in PS1 games. I normally prefer accurate emulation over enhancements that change the look of a game, but I have to admit these look great and don't ruin the look/feel of the games.
You can also do texture filtering and other enhancments, but the results are much more hit or miss, since it can make 2D elements look blurry and blobby. Even dialing up the resolution can show cracks and seams that you wouldn't see in the original since the actual geometry calculations aren't designed for that level of precision, though you can generally get away with dialing it up to 2x without too much trouble.
Blade Arma did all of that many years before any other emulator, in his plugin gpuBladeSoft: The enhanced geometry (so called PGXP), texture replacement (8 years before Bettle PSX), link cable, etc.
But, for some reason, nowadays it is all about the uber-annoying marketing of RetroArch.
Oh, and gpuBladeSoft still has the most amazing wireframe rendering ever seen.
I wouldn't say Saturn was any more similar to the later 3D accelerated standards than PlayStation, but it used quads instead of triangles, so you wouldn't get stuff warping along the diagonal bias. In that sense it was probably more dissimilar to the later stuff, actually. It was a limitation more than an advantage except with that one aspectI have to stress that's a very modern advancement to PSone emulation. It was thought to be impossible due to do how PSone rendering and GPU works.
Coordinates were non sufficient from start to finish to pull that off and unlike Saturn and N64 it didn't use anything remotely similar to OpenGL. (this is oversimplistic to say)
They said impressive, not playable/enjoyable.Something running at 15FPS and impressive? WHAT?
It is actually very playable. I'm not sure about the N-Gage version, since EKA2L1 pushes the game to 30, but it runs on par with the Windows Mobile version back in the day.They said impressive, not playable/enjoyable.
I was under the impression that Saturn didn't use the same method to render 3D that Sony did, which rounded coordinates internally (so they weren't correct, and thought to be impossible to obtain "correct") and snapped them on a grid which was the same as the end resolution. so, if you ran a game at 320x240 then vertices would just "snap to point" to those theoretic pixels. Very evident when emulating in HD because despite the fact you'd be running the game at 1280x960 (so 4 times the resolution) that grid would still be enforced.I wouldn't say Saturn was any more similar to the later 3D accelerated standards than PlayStation, but it used quads instead of triangles, so you wouldn't get stuff warping along the diagonal bias. In that sense it was probably more dissimilar to the later stuff, actually. It was a limitation more than an advantage except with that one aspect
Yeah, mostly right. The PS1 used affine texture mapping, and triangle primitives, and didn't have floating point on the CPU so it did these very coarse 3D calculations that would lead to both wobbly geometry and then textures that would sort of "fold" along the diagonal bias.I was under the impression that Saturn didn't use the same method to render 3D that Sony did, which rounded coordinates internally (so they weren't correct, and thought to be impossible to obtain "correct") and snapped them on a grid which was the same as the end resolution. so, if you ran a game at 320x240 then vertices would just "snap to point" to those theoretic pixels. Very evident when emulating in HD because despite the fact you'd be running the game at 1280x960 (so 4 times the resolution) that grid would still be enforced.
But just looked at HD Saturn and it's worse than I expected, so I have to agree.
Something running at 15FPS and impressive? WHAT?
Dunno about the PS1 but the N64 was capable of far more than the 99% οf its games showed. Boss studios unlocked "more power" from the machine using microcodes while developing World Driver Championship. As a result, the game uses far more polygons than any other game on the console and possible any 5th gen console game in general.does this mean the PS1 or N64 for example could also do things we thought impossible until now?
Then you have to try GBADoom, a port of PRBoom for Game Boy Advance. It's FAR better than the official games, it uses the full level layout to begin with (not the Jaguar layout), and it performs almost the same as the official games. It supports Doom 1, Doom 2, Ultimate, expansions and even Sigil.Absolute witchcraft. I remember seeing DOOM on the GBA, and thinking that was the wildest shit I'd ever seen. This is super impressive.
Absolute witchcraft. I remember seeing DOOM on the GBA, and thinking that was the wildest shit I'd ever seen. This is super impressive.
Well they saw V-Rally 3 and Asterix & Obelix XXL running on GBA so their astonishment must have been concrete.Imagine if Nintendo of the early 2000s end of the 90s could see this ..
Absolutely stunning.
Well they saw V-Rally 3 and Asterix & Obelix XXL running on GBA so their astonishment must have been concrete.
That should be interesting as everything I've read about the jag implies it is really really really bad at textured polygons, would also be interesting to see how tomb raider would run if it was reported to the saturn and playstation taking advantage of everything that has been learned since it's original releaseOpen Lara engine on the ATARI Jaguar
atariage.com
Atari Jaguar port could happen in the future. Lets see if XProger can learn the Jaguar stuff and overcome the poor Jaguar emulation.
I hope 32X also.Open Lara engine on the ATARI Jaguar
atariage.com
Atari Jaguar port could happen in the future. Lets see if XProger can learn the Jaguar stuff and overcome the poor Jaguar emulation.
Gameplay of the Game Boy Advance version of Tomb Raider: Legend, released in 2006.
Nicely played. With the added benefit that if he does 32X a Saturn version exists by proxy.I hope 32X also.
I think there was a port for the Saturn at some point.Nicely played. With the added benefit that if he does 32X a Saturn version exists by proxy.
I was thinking the same, I'd be really curious to see it ported again on the Sega Saturn.That should be interesting as everything I've read about the jag implies it is really really really bad at textured polygons, would also be interesting to see how tomb raider would run if it was reported to the saturn and playstation taking advantage of everything that has been learned since it's original release
XProger is working on the 32X port (not sure if he has continued the Jaguar port).
And /bin/cat has ported it to BREW, the Qualcomm platform (Zeebo, flip phones, etc).
There have been some improvements in the N64 port, but still a long way to see something playable.
Not that they have this openlara engine documented and all they just might.I still don't get why indie developers never attempt to make a "retro" game like those classic Tomb Raider games
This just shows that it's not easy creating a real 3D game, even by mid 90s standard. Takes a looot more work than a (shitty) 2D pixel "art" platformer or VN.I still don't get why indie developers never attempt to make a "retro" game like those classic Tomb Raider games
Yes, by default, the N64 handles less polygons than your average PS1 game but at the same time it's more efficient because it can render flat surfaces with much less polys than the PS1 would need.Those are all very awesome, but man tr needs a major geometry rework to fit how the 64 does things, or custom microcode
Tomb Raider's level geometry is very clearly built around quads -- the game's Saturn origins showing -- in a way that would be hard to further simplify. But it hardly seems to be pushing the limits in that regard, I would think N64 could do it fine.Yes, by default, the N64 handles less polygons than your average PS1 game but at the same time it's more efficient because it can render flat surfaces with much less polys than the PS1 would need.
The PS1 has a strong polygon engine but it uses a lot more than needed on a flat surface to avoid the whole thing warping all over the place. The N64 could still handle just as many (or more) polygons as the PS1 but it's not as easy because it needs special microcodes for that. I don't know exactly how that works, i assume the default configuration of the N64 forces a lot of extra features to the graphics that bottlenecks geometry detail. So some studios used special code to circumvent that default configuration and free more power for higher geometry. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
Anyway, for the N64 to be able to handle Tomb Raider (with it's excess use of polys on flat surfaces) would mean to:
A) Remove those excess polys and use more efficient level geometry that the N64 can handle thanks to it's perspective correction.
or
B) Use a microcode so the N64 can handle all those extra polygons, so you don't have to edit the levels themselves.
Or maybe neither is needed, dunno. I mean, if the GBA can handle those levels, why would the N64 need such heavy optimizations? The N64 has smoothly handled much more complex games (visually) than the OG Tomb Raider even without microcodes (just look at Shadowman).
Less but higher quality polygons with accurate coordinates and a dedicated z-buffer yes.Yes, by default, the N64 handles less polygons than your average PS1 game but at the same time it's more efficient because it can render flat surfaces with much less polys than the PS1 would need.
Well, the microcode is available, it's just that it was deprecated and taken out of the SDK shortly after the N64 launch because results were subpar and nobody was using it.The PS1 has a strong polygon engine but it uses a lot more than needed on a flat surface to avoid the whole thing warping all over the place. The N64 could still handle just as many (or more) polygons as the PS1 but it's not as easy because it needs special microcodes for that. I don't know exactly how that works, i assume the default configuration of the N64 forces a lot of extra features to the graphics that bottlenecks geometry detail. So some studios used special code to circumvent that default configuration and free more power for higher geometry. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
I don't think he's hitting any polygon or any other hard limit apart from texture cache.Anyway, for the N64 to be able to handle Tomb Raider (with it's excess use of polys on flat surfaces) would mean to:
A) Remove those excess polys and use more efficient level geometry that the N64 can handle thanks to it's perspective correction.
or
B) Use a microcode so the N64 can handle all those extra polygons, so you don't have to edit the levels themselves.
Or maybe neither is needed, dunno. I mean, if the GBA can handle those levels, why would the N64 need such heavy optimizations? The N64 has smoothly handled much more complex games (visually) than the OG Tomb Raider even without microcodes (just look at Shadowman).
4 FPS?XProger is working on the 32X port (not sure if he has continued the Jaguar port).
It's funny though, the textures are moving all over the place but the geometry is still stable. It doesn't jitter like on PS1.
Coordinates on PSone were simplified. There wasn't a depth buffer and they wanted to draw polygons fast, precise coordinates would get in the way for that so they set it like a "grid" dependant on the game resolution.It's funny though, the textures are moving all over the place but the geometry is still stable. It doesn't jitter like on PS1.
The Sega Saturn version is actually a port of the Playstation version, Sega just paid a timed exclusivity that forced the game to release in an incomplete state.....Tomb Raider's level geometry is very clearly built around quads -- the game's Saturn origins showing -- in a way that would be hard to further simplify. But it hardly seems to be pushing the limits in that regard, I would think N64 could do it fine.
The main processor of Jaguar is Tom, which is a multi-purpose processor with graphics extensions (+Blitter). It can be used as a CPU, which of course was the original idea of Atari. In the end most studios (Atari included) used the 68K just because it was the most popular assembly back then and nobody really knew RISC assembly, since it was the first RISC processor ever seen in a console. Most "16-bit games" only used the 68K, the Blitter and the Objects Processor.Well, both the Mega Drive/Genesis and the Jaguar have a Motorola 68000 as a central processor (and the jaguar one has almost double the clock frequency) so he could be making strides on both directions there.
Looks really good.
32X use Chilly Willy's CRT code for Mars & Genesis, use preprocessor for asm files
32X use asm code for matrix math and misc functions, watch dog timers for profiling (hw only), change gamepad layout, fix sprite rasterization,
32X rasterize_asm
I'm quite unsure of that.The Sega Saturn version is actually a port of the Playstation version, Sega just paid a timed exclusivity that forced the game to release in an incomplete state.....
Yes. I'm guessing XProger's first attack angle might be running it all on the 68000. Optimizing for the 32X might be an "expect the worst but hope for the best" scenario.The main processor of Jaguar is Tom, which is a multi-purpose processor with graphics extensions (+Blitter). It can be used as a CPU, which of course was the original idea of Atari. In the end most studios (Atari included) used the 68K just because it was the most popular assembly back then and nobody really knew RISC assembly, since it was the first RISC processor ever seen in a console. Most 16-bit games only used the 68K, the Blitter and the Objects Processor.
Yes. I'm guessing XProger's first attack angle might be running it all on the 68000. Optimizing for the 32X might be an "expect the worst but hope for the best" scenario.
That being, if cpu logic is the main bottleneck and he manages 10 fps on 32X, he might reach 20 fps on Jaguar. That bottleneck being a big "if"
Of course he is using the RISC processors.OpenLara on Sega 32X runs at 7-10 fps without any platform specific optimizations at native 320x224 (256 colors mode)