Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | | | |
| | While an emulator author may have a hard time deciding usability, accuracy is boolean. I personally prefer hard numbers from accuracy tests and/or game compatibility, but that isn't always necessary to show accuracy. I do not think you should change the recommendation status of your own emulator (for obvious reasons), but showing that accuracy and usability are important goals, and that you're keeping your emulator active are good ways to get it recommended. If you would like to do accuracy testing for us vs. other popular (and even unpopular) emulators, that would go a very long way. | | While an emulator author may have a hard time deciding usability, accuracy is boolean. I personally prefer hard numbers from accuracy tests and/or game compatibility, but that isn't always necessary to show accuracy. I do not think you should change the recommendation status of your own emulator (for obvious reasons), but showing that accuracy and usability are important goals, and that you're keeping your emulator active are good ways to get it recommended. If you would like to do accuracy testing for us vs. other popular (and even unpopular) emulators, that would go a very long way. |
| − |
| |
| − | Also you mentioned subcycle accuracy on your page. If you would like to add an entry for that [http://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Emulation_Accuracy here] explaining the difference between that and cycle accuracy, that would be very appreciated. --[[User:Syboxez|Syboxez]] ([[User talk:Syboxez|talk]]) 17:33, 5 March 2018 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Also have you tested CLK in Windows with mingw? It may work without any additional effort (I don't use Windows, so I can't test myself). --[[User:Syboxez|Syboxez]] ([[User talk:Syboxez|talk]]) 17:37, 5 March 2018 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | You are correct in your assumption on the 2600 page about classification, which is why I hate using the term "Cycle" to describe an emulator's accuracy, as people assume that means perfect. For now, I would still put that classification as "Mid" as it was before, even though you are correct in calling it cycle accurate. Ever since bsnes, people have been taking the term "cycle accurate" to mean 100% perfection, when that is demonstrably not the case. This issue extends (perhaps to an even worse extent) to FPGA emulation. Plenty of inaccurate/incomplete FPGA cores attempting to emulate a console exist, but whenever you mention FPGA to someone in the retro gaming world, they generally take that to mean infallible. If FPGA emulation was infallible, then the Super NT wouldn't be getting firmware updates to correct bugs. Same goes for cycle accuracy; if higan was perfect, then there would be no updates to the emulator addressing accuracy. As for the [[Emulation Accuracy]] page, I tried adding the bit about higan and FPGA in there, and just forgot to remove the word "perfection" (if you couldn't tell, that part wasn't written by me). Updates to that page to correct any misconceptions are strongly encouraged, and I liked your section on subcycle accuracy quite a bit, although I may add a bit at the beginning so non-techies can understand a bit better. *Rant over (not really)* --[[User:Syboxez|Syboxez]] ([[User talk:Syboxez|talk]]) 23:06, 5 March 2018 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | : Agreed; 'cycle accurate' is virtually a marketing label at this point — it doesn't inherently tell you much about how indistinguishable an emulator is likely to be from a real machine. — [[User:Tommy|Tommy]] ([[User talk:Tommy|talk]]) 09:55, 6 March 2018 (EST)
| |
