AO486 Compatibility List

[Caldor]

Another forum member suggested we make a sheet listing all working AO486 games with comments and such, so I went ahead and started one:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[Schyz]

If we want to stick only to DOS games the list will be thousands, and we are not counting different versions, patches, languages, etc. My "Total DOS Collection" from March 2019 is more than 20k, just games and installers, from 1995 or earlier (so they can potentially run OK on the MiSTer).

It would be much easier to keep a list of games with issues. I've tested a lot of games that work, I've managed to get even more modern games from the late 90's, like Fallout, Dungeon Keeper or Tomb Raider running, of course, very slow. I have issues in some games with the Joystick, some that require optical drive and in others with too much speed (which can be reproduced on real hardware), but I haven't found a game yet that I cannot run putting the effort on it. Not saying the core is perfect, just that after trying more than a hundred games it just works.

On Windows 95 OSR2 I've installed DirectX 5, not sure if versions 6 or 7 will work, DirectX 8 doesn't because it requires an FPU, but the list of Win9X games up to DirectX 5 is not small either. And let's not forget Windows 3.1, I have Civilization II running in there, I'm sure there are a lot of games too.

I think it would be better to create a list of games that do not run yet, or that require some kind of tweaking, for example, "Space Quest 4 needs to be started at 30MHz or the Sound Blaster detection will fail" or "Tie Fighter Collector's Edition CD-Version doesn't detect joystick axis or buttons"

[ZigZag]

I just read running a math coprocessor emulator can speed up Doom. Personally I'm not interested in it, but was looking up the emulator for something else & thought I'd pass the info on in case anyone wants to try it.

You can download several 8087 emulators for DOS here:

http://www.ittnnet.com/downloads/EMULATRS/emulatrs.html

[Caldor]

True Schyz, but while there are many different versions of several games, that can be mentioned in notes I think, and also I do not think its worth going into details about older games, as anything from... the 80ies and such, should not be a problem to run.

Then there are several games that are so similar, that they can be counted as one, like most Sierra games. They can be put into two categories I think. AGI, which I think is the older games, and... scidhuv or something like that, for newer games.

If it does become a list of thousands of games, there is always the search function.

I am thinking we need to have a list of games that we have been able to run because a positive list helps people know what games they can run with AO486, rather than not knowing if anyone even tried if the working ones are not on the list.

So I have so far focused on games I can get working. Another option is to make more than one sheet. The first sheet for games that does work in some kind of playable way, and a sheet for games that cannot be run at all (but should be able to). Maybe a third sheet for games that are not supposed to be able to run and reasons why... like requires FPU, requires MMX and so on.

I just read running a math coprocessor emulator can speed up Doom. Personally I'm not interested in it, but was looking up the emulator for something else & thought I'd pass the info on in case anyone wants to try it.

You can download several 8087 emulators for DOS here:

http://www.ittnnet.com/downloads/EMULATRS/emulatrs.html

Nice. I have been looking for FPU emulators and such and had trouble finding them. Instead I have found some useful DOS extenders like the HX DOS extender and DOS32A. They help make a lot of games run. With the FPU emulator, someone said it can f.ex. get Quake to run, but when it comes to Quake, it runs at something like 1 fps and is not exactly playable.

[Jayde Six]

Nice list so far, though Warcraft 1 is listed as no cd audio, if I remember correctly it was included on the disc but only actually worked on Mac, as a workaround for a Mac related audio issue.

[Caldor]

Nice list so far, though Warcraft 1 is listed as no cd audio, if I remember correctly it was included on the disc but only actually worked on Mac, as a workaround for a Mac related audio issue.

So the PC version does not use it anyway? I will try to use it as a regular ISO without audio tracks and see what happens.

[Jayde Six]

So the PC version does not use it anyway? I will try to use it as a regular ISO without audio tracks and see what happens.

As far as I know that's correct, I googled a bit and found the forum post on vogons I had read a while back that went into it a bit.

https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=118115#p118115

[Schyz]

True Schyz, but while there are many different versions of several games, that can be mentioned in notes I think, and also I do not think its worth going into details about older games, as anything from... the 80ies and such, should not be a problem to run.

Then there are several games that are so similar, that they can be counted as one, like most Sierra games. They can be put into two categories I think. AGI, which I think is the older games, and... scidhuv or something like that, for newer games.

Games from the 80's have more problems to run in my experience, issues with SB being on IRQ5, issues detecting SB on fast systems, general issues with fast CPUs, issues with the upper memory area and the exotic mapping on ao486, etc. Later DOS games that use protected mode don't have issues with memory managers and tolerate fast CPUs without issues.

For the Sierra example, the VGA remakes of LSL1 and SQ1 have patches available for Sound Blaster issues, but SQ4 (1989) doesn't, so you cannot really put everything on the same bag. I've also found issues with a version of LSL5 that didn't run, but a different one from another source had no issues.

In any case, feel free to approach this as you wish, if you think showing a positive list to people might help, fine with me, I just thought that actually focusing on the issues might be more helpful, especially for the developers, than a list of thousands of games that do work.

[kathleen]

Maybe use two tabs in the excel workbook. One called [Working] and one called [Not_Working] so then it will be up to the reader/developer to select the relevant one for what he wants to check

[Caldor]

Games from the 80's have more problems to run in my experience, issues with SB being on IRQ5, issues detecting SB on fast systems, general issues with fast CPUs, issues with the upper memory area and the exotic mapping on ao486, etc. Later DOS games that use protected mode don't have issues with memory managers and tolerate fast CPUs without issues.

For the Sierra example, the VGA remakes of LSL1 and SQ1 have patches available for Sound Blaster issues, but SQ4 (1989) doesn't, so you cannot really put everything on the same bag. I've also found issues with a version of LSL5 that didn't run, but a different one from another source had no issues.

The thing with Sierra games is that the remakes just use the adventure engine they replaced the old engine with. Which is why they can generally be put into two categories. In a few cases there are exceptions to it, like... LSL7 I guess... but that is pretty much it. The rest of them pretty much can be put into two categories. ScummVM goes into details about it. Oh yeah, SQ4 is a bit of a special case, it seems to be a Windows game? I got that one... I dont have many Sierra games, so I remember which ones I do have. SQ4 works with AO486, so I should add that to the list I guess. It also had some special speed issues, so that is probably worth mentioning, not sure it will affect AO486, but I think there is a chance it could. There is a certain point in that game where if the computer is too fast, that point will be impossible. I suspect its actually why I got stuck and never finished it.

Overall, I am somewhat certain it can be said that Sierra adventure games work with AO486. Unless its the very late ones like maybe LSL7 and such, but I think they also work with it. The main reason to go into detail about them is that some of them, like SQ4 has some special quirks.

Old DOS games might have some issues, but usually not any that I have found to stop them from working with AO486, as you mention, its a problem that makes it a bit problematic to setup the sound, but I usually find a way around that pretty fast. But with those old games I think the exceptions to the rule are the relevant ones, and the newer DOS games, they often use DOS4GW I find, they are the ones that usually have trouble running, or games that use a CD. But games that use a CD usually also use DOS4GW in some way.

The newer ones are relevant to mention I think, because of how its often quite obscure whether they require FPU or have high speed CPU requirements.

[Caldor]

Maybe use two tabs in the excel workbook. One called [Working] and one called [Not_Working] so then it will be up to the reader/developer to select the relevant one for what he wants to check

Yup, I had already thought about this being relevant to do. Earlier I fixed some rows having gotten mixed up. So the comments and such did not match the names.

I just added two new sheets for non-working games and one for games that have special requirements, so that they are known to not be supposed to work with AO486 anyway.

[Schyz]

...

SQ1 original works fine, SQ1 VGA has a patch available for SB issues, SQ4 uses the same engine as SQ1 VGA, no special case or "quirks" here, it has the exact same SB issue but there's simply no patch available for it. I'm just warning you that you shouldn't just put "All Sierra games -> Work", not even "All SCI-based games -> Work" on your spreadsheet.

Otherwise, thanks for agreeing that most of the games work and the exceptions to the rule are the relevant ones.

What game using DOS4GW has issues?

A game that runs, even if it runs slow, is a positive on my book, the issue is a game that cannot run due to compatibility issues. Being slow is perfectly fine when the minimum requirements are above the specs of ao486. Metal Slug 2 is slow in the NeoGeo core and that's a perfect reproduction of the original behaviour, and what we expect from an FPGA implementation, we shouldn't tag a game as problematic because it runs as it would on real hardware.

[rhester72]

What game using DOS4GW has issues?

Descent, at least, though there is a workaround using an alternative extender.

[akeley]

A game that runs, even if it runs slow, is a positive on my book, the issue is a game that cannot run due to compatibility issues. Being slow is perfectly fine when the minimum requirements are above the specs of ao486. Metal Slug 2 is slow in the NeoGeo core and that's a perfect reproduction of the original behaviour, and what we expect from an FPGA implementation, we shouldn't tag a game as problematic because it runs as it would on real hardware.

NeoGeo is a closed hardware, so it's not a good example. I think you should consider at least mentioning the slowness in the comments or some such (eg colour scale), because otherwise readers might be misleaded, thinking that Quake "runs" and getting 1 fps.

[Caldor]

What game using DOS4GW has issues?

Descent, at least, though there is a workaround using an alternative extender.

Warcraft 2 as well, and... I suspect its also how I got Strife running.

I do agree that games that runs slowly should be listed as working... unless maybe they are very unplayable like Death Rally. Death Rally runs, but it wont run with more than maybe 5fps at best. So I would not list Death Rally as working, but having a note about the game running slowly.

When it comes to Quake I would list that as the third category, because it does require FPU and while software FPU exist, it wont make a game playable. So that goes for Screamer 1 and 2 as well. Games we list there will be for future reference in case some sort of workaround might be found... and it seems unlikely one will be found. Would take some FPGA magic for sure... maybe making the core use the FPU of the ARM CPU or something like that. That seems to be the kind of tricks it would probably require to get FPU working for this core that would have any use I think.

[Cebion]

In emulation the term Playable is often used.
It may be working but you can you play it without getting a stress disorder is another question ;D

[Caldor]

In emulation the term Playable is often used.
It may be working but you can you play it without getting a stress disorder is another question ;D

Yes, and I would consider Starcraft, Diablo and Dune 2000 to be "playable". But other games, when the frame-rate is constantly below 10 and unstable on top of that, then I would not consider it playable, but more akin to "runnable". I would not consider the main list of games that can run to be especially useful if there ends up being 5 or more on that list that are not actually playable in any practical way, making it misleading to have those games on that list. I have a pretty high tolerance for what can be considered playable, but if the lack makes it impossible to aim and even complete the simplest of missions, then I do not think the term playable applies.

[akeley]

I have a pretty high tolerance for what can be considered playable

Well, I don't Somebody else's take might be in the middle. It's subjective, that's why to make such list useful at all you should include more than just simple "run/doesn't run" field. Notes are the best way I think.

Furthermore, imo it should really concentrate on being realistic, and tighten the scope. Saying that Pentium era games "run" will only build up people's expectations and result in many disappointments. Worse yet, it can make people who have never played these games before think that low performance is normal, and that's how it was back then.

[rhester72]

I personally haven't witnessed a whole lot of variability in performance of the core apples-to-apples...from what I've seen (across a pretty wide swath of games), we've got a 486SX/33. If it ran well on that platform, it'll do equally well here. Pentium is a bridge MUCH too far.

[Caldor]

But that is just it... Diablo 1 is fully playable. It does say it requires a Pentium, but it still plays smoothly. Dune 2000 and Starcraft also plays in a way that is playble, but with a note that can say it runs slowly. Diablo 1 even has a "you are not running this on a Pentium" warning.

But there is a big difference between these games and the games that clearly seem to want FPU or can only run in VESA. Unless Settlers 2 is running VESA in game, and I do not think it is, then that is the only VESA game that seems to run well on this core. Duke Nukem 3D, Blood and Shadow Warrior are all playable, but they have pretty unreliable frame-rates. They clearly would prefer to run on Pentium machines, but can run on less. Diablo 2 f.ex. it can also run, but its a complete slideshow. Unlike Diablo 1, it does not run with a stable FPS and is not getting even close to 10fps at any point.

Fact is with most of these games we often cannot even be sure what the minimum specs used to be.

But fact is, if we are going to try to argue Pentium games wont run on this core, we take quite a few playable games off the list. In some ways this core is clearly performing better than a 486SX with 33Mhz. Duke Nukem 3D is said to have a 486DX2/66 as minium requirements, but it runs quite well I think. But with the variable framerate.

Notes are fine, but games that cannot hold a stable 5-10fps do not make much sense to have on a list of "playable" games... on the other hand I would argue that games that are playable where you can complete the levels and such without it taking more than twice as long on the AO486 to being near impossible, then it should not be considered playable I think.

This core should not realistically be close to a 486DX2/66 Mhz, and a lot of "Pentium" games had that as their minimum requirements. So there is going to have to be some subjective assessments I think. But it does not seem very subjective to argue a game running at constantly less than 10fps to be playable.

But I guess the center one is to maybe be called not playable rather than not working to make that distinction clear.

If the list is only to be a list of "these games run great" then the list is pretty pointless tbh... at least so far my experience is that everything below the 486SX/33 requirement runs great if you just figure out how to setup the game. The only reason to have them on the list is to have the notes about their possible quirks for getting them running.

If a person is hoping to get a certain game running and it can run, they might as well try it and then decide for themselves if the slow warning is too slow for them, but, but again there are some cases so extreme I still do not think they should be on the main list just because you can get it to run.

[akeley]

You can just tick "run/does not run" box and put fps and glitch remarks in the notes. This way the "playable" subjectivity trap can be avoided and anybody can make their own mind up if it's worth trying a particular game.

[Beeble]

Whoever made the Wing Commander III entry, how did you get it to run?

I managed to install it and Speed was OK during tests, far better then expected but it throws a error message while starting.
According to the interwebs it is due to bad CD-ROM virtualisation. Copying the whole CD to HDD didnt helped at all.

[Caldor]

You can just tick "run/does not run" box and put fps and glitch remarks in the notes. This way the "playable" subjectivity trap can be avoided and anybody can make their own mind up if it's worth trying a particular game.

That is what I want to avoid. All entries will end up being on the first page pretty much and there will be a need to use 2-3 extra columns to describe the state of each game. I do not see it as especially subjective to require a game to have at least a stable 10fps to be considered playable.

[Schyz]

Warcraft 2 as well, and... I suspect its also how I got Strife running.

Hey, I also found issues with Warcraft 2 just now (took time to reach the "W"). Didn't check much because it's a cracked version, so I'm not going to bother if the normal one works fine.

About Strife, disabling Level 1 or 2 cache runs fine (haven't tested much), lowering to 56MHz with both caches enabled gives you enough time to fight the first soldier, and lowering to 30MHz I had enough time to kill him before it crashes.

Not sure if it's a stability issue because we are pushing the FPGA too much, Sorgelig recommends to start at 30MHz with Level 2 cache disabled as there could be less stable DE10-nano boards.

EDIT: Warcraft 2 demo v1.08 works under Win95 OSR2. Strangely the cracked version I have doesn't, but after copying the "uvconfig.exe" from that version to the full game folder and running it from a command prompt window, the full version also works fine under Win95 OSR2.

EDIT2: Descent throws the same error, and it also works fine under Win95 OSR2.

EDIT3: Both Warcraft 2 and Descent work fine with DOS/32A.

[Caldor]

I have managed to get the full GOG version of Diablo running on MiSTer with the AO486 core. Its not running at full speed, but its also not lagging and stuttering either. It also means Hellfire is playable. I added some reg scripts for your Windows installation with links in the video description to them, that makes it possible to just copy the GOG Diablo directory to a VHD and run the reg file (there are 3 but I am pretty sure only one of them is really needed)

If there are any issues, I will try to update the videos description with the new information.

https://youtu.be/4DCbHxqETmc

[Caldor]

Hey, I also found issues with Warcraft 2 just now (took time to reach the "W"). Didn't check much because it's a cracked version, so I'm not going to bother if the normal one works fine.

About Strife, disabling Level 1 or 2 cache runs fine (haven't tested much), lowering to 56MHz with both caches enabled gives you enough time to fight the first soldier, and lowering to 30MHz I had enough time to kill him before it crashes.

Not sure if it's a stability issue because we are pushing the FPGA too much, Sorgelig recommends to start at 30MHz with Level 2 cache disabled as there could be less stable DE10-nano boards.

EDIT: Warcraft 2 demo v1.08 works under Win95 OSR2. Strangely the cracked version I have doesn't, but after copying the "uvconfig.exe" from that version to the full game folder and running it from a command prompt window, the full version also works fine under Win95 OSR2.

EDIT2: Descent throws the same error, and it also works fine under Win95 OSR2.

EDIT3: Both Warcraft 2 and Descent work fine with DOS/32A.

Strife works without cache level 1 and 2? I got it running with 90mhz and full cache enabled... wont it be much slower if you disable those caches?

I use the DOS version from GOG for Strife. It is included as a ZIP file with the Strife game on GOG, so I just put that on my MiSTer VHD. Then I replaced the DOS4GW file with a DOS32A one that I renamed, to make it use that instead... or... I think this one is built into the exe, so it might require the DOS32A command to be used on a specific exe file. But then it should work without removing speed or cache from the core.

Its interesting that you got Descent working in Windows 95. Maybe it was a problem with my version of Descent, or maybe it was the version of Windows I was using at the time.

[akeley]

You can just tick "run/does not run" box and put fps and glitch remarks in the notes. This way the "playable" subjectivity trap can be avoided and anybody can make their own mind up if it's worth trying a particular game.

That is what I want to avoid. All entries will end up being on the first page pretty much and there will be a need to use 2-3 extra columns to describe the state of each game. I do not see it as especially subjective to require a game to have at least a stable 10fps to be considered playable.

Your "10 fps" threshold is already subjective. For example, for me a game to be "playable" it needs to run at full speed (because it's 2020 and it's possible to achieve via emulation). For somebody else it might be 15 fps, or 20, etc, etc.

Ultimately it's your list and your call, I just wanted to point out the flaws I perceive in this approach. I'd be very much interested in a list which could help me save time and decide which games are worth playing, or what issues others have encountered. Simple "runs/doesn't run" or highly subjective "playable" are bit of an empty info for me.

[Caldor]

You can just tick "run/does not run" box and put fps and glitch remarks in the notes. This way the "playable" subjectivity trap can be avoided and anybody can make their own mind up if it's worth trying a particular game.

That is what I want to avoid. All entries will end up being on the first page pretty much and there will be a need to use 2-3 extra columns to describe the state of each game. I do not see it as especially subjective to require a game to have at least a stable 10fps to be considered playable.

Your "10 fps" threshold is already subjective. For example, for me a game to be "playable" it needs to run at full speed (because it's 2020 and it's possible to achieve via emulation). For somebody else it might be 15 fps, or 20, etc, etc.

Ultimately it's your list and your call, I just wanted to point out the flaws I perceive in this approach. I'd be very much interested in a list which could help me save time and decide which games are worth playing, or what issues others have encountered. Simple "runs/doesn't run" or highly subjective "playable" are bit of an empty info for me.

Of course its subjective... but its a measurable number which makes it something to go by. There are of course people who demand it to be 20fps or more f.ex, and that is understandable. But I mean playable in the rather literal sense. The point between impossible to play and less than optimal to play. Diablo is a good example because its not running great, but clearly its possible to actually complete the game.

Doing that with Duke Nukem 3D running VESA graphics, putting it at 5fps or lower, well, I doubt anyone would complete the game like that. But as the game is right now with its... should be 10-30 fps, but probably somewhere between 10-20 as its average, it is playable and completeable. Its the difference between making it annoying to aim, and the 5fps or lower being... near impossible to aim.

If it was only about the games being able to run at full speed... well we could have been doing that all along. Its not like the MiSTer really does much in terms of making it a better experience for any of these games... except that it gives us something to tinker with. Like using MIDI with it, connecting it to CRT monitors and such. Both are still possible with PCem and DOSBox, so its not really much of an arguement for the MiSTer either.

So I would argue its mainly about it being for the fun of doing it. People seem to mainly be wanting to have even games that run below 5fps on the main list, which I cannot see much reason to. It should be all definitions be considered unplayable in a not especially subjective way.

GTA for example... I had put it on the last page because I could not get it to run at all. Pretty sure it requires FPU or something... but then someone got the 8 bit version of it to run using DOS32A. So I put it to the second page. I guess it should still remain on both pages since this game has so many versions. 8bit, 16bit, 3DFX and Windows.

[Cebion]

GTA is a wonderful game to test speeds and different OS and Graphiccards =D

[Schyz]

Strife works without cache level 1 and 2? I got it running with 90mhz and full cache enabled... wont it be much slower if you disable those caches?

Mine crashes, I thought you also had issues with Strife, I guess I'll try DOS/32A with Strife then.