The online community for MiSTer FPGA enthusiasts
https://misterfpga.org/
Wow you just blew my mind! Sure I knew about games requiring minimum spec requirements, I thought that translated to if you're playing something like Overwatch with 4 GB of RAM then prepare for 25 frames per second. You know something low but reasonable that wouldn't hurt the experience.SuperBabyHix wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:28 pm The game runs as expected. It requires a much more powerful CPU than what the ao486 core has. You have to remember back in the day just meeting the minimum system requirements didn't guarantee the game would run at what we now consider "playable" frame rates. The Mister core falls below even the minimum requirements for this game.
Understood, I'll just find another way to play it.
Just wait for Robert/FPGAzumSpaß to work his magic and the PS1 core to release, then you can play the PS-version of DD2, which is identical to the PC version as I recall.
Yes, that is how it was. Was it acceptable? Not really, but that's just how it was. I guess things have changed for the better in that regard.Captain FPGA wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:00 pm Your telling me there were games released back then which ran at like 9 frames per second, so long as they met the minimum system requirement that was acceptable?
Things really are different back then. The core itself is amazing for the little engine that could, the de10 nano. I'm amazed and perplexed by the standards from way back then. Never played SNES Star Fox so I can't relate, I do have the N64 version though.SuperBabyHix wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:54 pmYes, that is how it was. Was it acceptable? Not really, but that's just how it was. I guess things have changed for the better in that regard.Captain FPGA wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:00 pm Your telling me there were games released back then which ran at like 9 frames per second, so long as they met the minimum system requirement that was acceptable?
But you also have to put it in to context of what was considered acceptable performance back then. A 3D game running at 15 FPS was considered playable. Star Fox on the SNES, which was a highly praised game at the time, rarely tops 15FPS. The 3Dfx Voodoo blew peoples minds because it ran Quake at 640x480 at 30 FPS...30.
There are going to be exceptions to every rule, but for the performance level of the ao486 core you will probably be hard pressed to get great performance out of most 3D games made past 1993 or 94. And that's not a slight to the amazing work on the core. It has great features, compatibility, and performance as long as your expectations are realistic.
That or I can download it for my PSIO. At least until he gets the infamous PSX Mister core up and running.ToothbrushThreepwood wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:56 pmJust wait for Robert/FPGAzumSpaß to work his magic and the PS1 core to release, then you can play the PS-version of DD2, which is identical to the PC version as I recall.
Not really. It wasn’t a port as much as the game was designed for both platforms from the beginning. Graphics were better and less buggy on PS than the the PC versions, according to https://destructionderby.fandom.com/wik ... on_Derby_2Captain FPGA wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 4:17 amThings really are different back then. The core itself is amazing for the little engine that could, the de10 nano. I'm amazed and perplexed by the standards from way back then. Never played SNES Star Fox so I can't relate, I do have the N64 version though.SuperBabyHix wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:54 pmYes, that is how it was. Was it acceptable? Not really, but that's just how it was. I guess things have changed for the better in that regard.Captain FPGA wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:00 pm Your telling me there were games released back then which ran at like 9 frames per second, so long as they met the minimum system requirement that was acceptable?
But you also have to put it in to context of what was considered acceptable performance back then. A 3D game running at 15 FPS was considered playable. Star Fox on the SNES, which was a highly praised game at the time, rarely tops 15FPS. The 3Dfx Voodoo blew peoples minds because it ran Quake at 640x480 at 30 FPS...30.
There are going to be exceptions to every rule, but for the performance level of the ao486 core you will probably be hard pressed to get great performance out of most 3D games made past 1993 or 94. And that's not a slight to the amazing work on the core. It has great features, compatibility, and performance as long as your expectations are realistic.
That or I can download it for my PSIO. At least until he gets the infamous PSX Mister core up and running.ToothbrushThreepwood wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:56 pmJust wait for Robert/FPGAzumSpaß to work his magic and the PS1 core to release, then you can play the PS-version of DD2, which is identical to the PC version as I recall.
Were there any substantive differences between the PS1 version port the AO486 version?
Like many games back in the day the PC version supported a higher resolution then the PSX version.Captain FPGA wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 4:17 am
That or I can download it for my PSIO. At least until he gets the infamous PSX Mister core up and running.
Were there any substantive differences between the PS1 version port the AO486 version?
What about the performance you guys? Let's say I have a high powered Pentium or higher PC how does that stack up to the PSX version? By the sound of it the AO486 version gives you a higher resolution than Playstation.Chris23235 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:09 amLike many games back in the day the PC version supported a higher resolution then the PSX version.Captain FPGA wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 4:17 am
That or I can download it for my PSIO. At least until he gets the infamous PSX Mister core up and running.
Were there any substantive differences between the PS1 version port the AO486 version?
Destruction Derby supported up to 800x600 pixels while the PSX version ran in fixed 320x240. As textures weren't in a higher resolution on the PC this resulted "only" in worse aliasing on the PSX but as the game ran on a TV back then this wasn't such an issue. As far as I know the PC version only had 256 colours (at least in SVGA), while the PSX version showed its grahpics in 16 Bit.
Dude.... in the early era of 3d graphics (early 90s, late 80s), it was not uncommon to see frame rates of 5 FPS in some games.Captain FPGA wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 7:00 pm
Your telling me there were games released back then which ran at like 9 frames per second, so long as they met the minimum system requirement that was acceptable?
foft is back at it with the Amiga, and it seems to be very promising, so the idea of someone making an hybrid a0486 or Pentium would be mindblowing...H6rdc0re wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:34 pm Only hope for significantly better performance on the Mister is hybrid emulation. Using one of the ARM cores for CPU code and the FPGA for GPU/Sound emulation perhaps even allowing for a simple 3D accelerator. A single ARM A9 Cortex should be able to run with performance comparable to Pentium 2 or maybe even a low Pentium 3. The real question is if anyone is willing to do all that work. Perhaps we might get a FPU implementation on the FPGA in future as there's still some room on the FPGA.
Would it be possible to use a Raspberry Pi to do run the CPU code in combination with the Mister running the GPU and Sound? Perhaps something like that could be the solution.
