New
#100
Yeah, that is why I want to wait and see if it's true or not. Emulation has always interested me, so it piqued my curiosity to see how that would work. :)
The Last Days of Windows 7
-
-
New #101
Given the 360 hardware and how hard it is to emulate a NES (properly) even on today's high-end kit, I'd say "not well indeed"
.
-
New #102
Well Microsoft did make the 360, so they's probably have a easier time making an actual emulator.
Seems like so much work though when they can just make actual PC ports. Which seems much more likely in my opinion.
-
New #103
Emulators have issues across different hardware/processor types not because people don't understand the hardware, it's because emulating timing and certain features (especially when going from a RISC architecture, like the PPC, to a CISC architecture, like Intel x86) can be downright impossible or so processor intensive to emulate that they can't feasibly be done.
Again, if the game was written in Visual Studio using the XNA toolkit and written to DirectX, it can be ported fairly easily (and that is one of the reasons that toolkits like XNA exist). If it wasn't, then you're looking at either some rewrite or emulation, neither of which are appealing to most developers).
-
New #104
-
New #105
There would be only one feature that MIGHT draw me to Eight--The ability to read/play/write/burn Blu-ray via WMC and WMP. Other than that, I have no use for it. Xbox? Whoopy-Do!
-
New #106
Seriously? If you were talking about consoles such as the Sega Saturn or Dreamcast, I'd totally agree. But the NES? It's as easy to emulate as a Commodore 64, and that one's been done to perfection even on PC systems that are antiquated by today's standards (I'm talking Pentium-II 300MHz here). :)
-
New #107
Perfection? You might want to read up on all the hacks to make things work, and what happens to even a high-end system when you emulate the NES *exactly*. It's not pretty.
-
New #108
Maybe our ideas of perfection are different. Hmm. Truth is I've used C64 emulators more than NES emulators, but always thought both ran just fine.
Sorry, nevermind. :)
-
New #109
No worries - it's just that most emulators do things differently to try and make things work. Emulating even that simple of a system exactly as it was designed is actually quite difficult (partially because the hardware in a gaming console is usually very specialized and customized, and partially because making a different processor architecture emulate something that custom requires either a LOT of horsepower, or emulation tricks to avoid certain issues). You either have something that runs with decent speed but doesn't exactly emulate the original environment and has bugs (which can cause issues in the games that then run in the emulator), or you emulate the original hardware perfectly, bug for bug, and you end up with something that's much more difficult for the non-like hardware doing the emulation to achieve.
For example, Nestopia is probably the most accurate emulator available to the original NES design, and requires anywhere from 800MHz to 1.5-1.6GHz of Intel x86 CPU power to properly emulate the equivalent of a TI graphing calculator. The developer of this has moved to SNES emulation (again, as close to the original as possible), and has found that he needs 3+GHz on an Intel platform to approach being proper emulation of the SNES hardware. That gaming console hardware was from 1990, and had hardware for CPU and audio that ran at ~21MHz. Again, the issue isn't speed, it's timing and accuracy - that hardware, while paltry in speed, was highly optimized to do what that device did. Emulating something from 1990 at about 21MHz takes upwards of 3GHz on today's hardware.... Interesting, no?
Quote
Related Discussions