Spring RTS Engine

Topic, I would like the answer within 3-4 days, please...

Tired of not having a PS2, and would like to play the two or three games worth playing...

I would sell you mine if it worked, I really would.

PS2 emulation is crappy at best. Otherwise I would have ditched that terrible console two months after getting it. I can't remember what they have these days, but I used to use one which got me about five FPS and didn't thread sound correctly.

I'll do some research.

Well your only option is the PS2 Emulator pcsx2:

http://www.pcsx2.net/

It's nearing it's 1.0 release and almost 500 games are playable with decent frame rates.

Here is it's compatibility list:
http://www.pcsx2.net/compat.php?p=1&c=$ ... &s4=1&s5=1

Enjoy.

Edit: crap, lolz - good one neddie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQA1er2- ... ed&search=

Is it as bad as those pictures were? If so

If it is better, or perhaps boosted by my GFX card some

Just try it.

GF FX or higher is needed for the PS2/Xbox emulators.

But CPU power is a big must. My crappy celeron D 32bit socket 448 2.4Ghz on a crappy mobo gave me 10-15 fps on devil may cry 2, thats higher than what I get playing spring compiled with mingw32!

I heard that there is no emulator that can be actual considered to work yet...

But if you really pretend to do that you should buy a controller to play with it: it may be hard to play some games winhout the possibility of chosing how fast your guy or the aim will move... (this is allowed by that thing you can push in all directions and even press down in the ps2 controller wich name I dont know in english )

yah you cant tie keyboard buttons or the mouse to the analog controlelr in that emulator.

I thought there was a working emulator by now, or there should be one by now, PCSX2 for instance. Anyway you'll need a PS2 bios and the only legal way to get it is dumping it straight from a PS2.

A simple google search or request from a friend who has a copy should suffice.

PCSX2 has high compability, but many of the PS2's best games won't work with it, and you'll get horrible frame rates on the rest, unless you buy a computer that'll cost you more than 5 PS2s or so.

It's pretty damn impressive, but not for general use.

(I tried it with about 30 games or so before I got bored with it)

yah you cant tie keyboard buttons or the mouse to the analog controlelr in that emulator.

You can.

The emulators cpu intensive by nature, btu I got 5-15 fps on a celeron D 2.4Ghz 32bit and thats a terrible cpu, a half decent cpu should give decent framerates (anything above 32 is invisible to the human eye, despite some people who insist they can tell but they cant they just think they can).

A general rule for emulation is that the machine must be 7times stronger than the machine emulated. Just putting it out there.

cpu wise.

PC's ahve the encessary graphics pwoer to pwn the equivilant console, but the cpu strain fo emulating the ps2 cpu is a huge verhead so you need a halfdecent cpu.

That being said a core 2 duo + geforce 4 will outperform a pentium 4 +geforce 8800 at running a ps2 emulator.

Emulators arent graphics intensive, their cpu intensive, and all the graphics processing has to be managed via the cpu anyway in order to be converted to a native PC format anyay.

AF wrote:The emulators cpu intensive by nature, btu I got 5-15 fps on a celeron D 2.4Ghz 32bit and thats a terrible cpu, a half decent cpu should give decent framerates (anything above 32 is invisible to the human eye, despite some people who insist they can tell but they cant they just think they can).

lolz ur stupid

No, seriously, go read some on the capabilities of the human eye. You'll see that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

ZellSF wrote:

AF wrote:The emulators cpu intensive by nature, btu I got 5-15 fps on a celeron D 2.4Ghz 32bit and thats a terrible cpu, a half decent cpu should give decent framerates (anything above 32 is invisible to the human eye, despite some people who insist they can tell but they cant they just think they can).

lolz ur stupid

No, seriously, go read some on the capabilities of the human eye. You'll see that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

lolz no u r stupid, humans don't have eyes, dumbass.

No but seriously, i can defo see a difference between 30 and 100 fps. It just seems smoother

Comp1337 wrote:No but seriously, i can defo see a difference between 30 and 100 fps. It just seems smoother

That's simply because of the interaction between frame rate and refresh rate.

P3374H wrote:

Comp1337 wrote:No but seriously, i can defo see a difference between 30 and 100 fps. It just seems smoother

That's simply because of the interaction between frame rate and refresh rate.

Or because, you know, more images are showing

(if you're going to claim the human eye can't see those extra images, the human eye can see something that lasts 1/220th of a second)

Sure, but persistence effects and diminishing returns means that while 30 is ok, but annoying for long periods, and 40 is smooth, and 60 is butter, 100 looks about the same as 60.

Really, 40 is more than fine for just about anything.