> > I use Pentium 3/450 and Windows 2000 rc 2. > > Here is the table. It shows some interesting numbers, there are probably > > some > > weird bugs (in SimCoupe). > > Yes, there are definitely some weird bugs in SimCoupe. But I thought we were > talking about WinCoupe? (As far as I remember, you were the last person to > change SimCoupe source :)
Of course, I do talk about WinCoupe. I just can understand why the program have been renamed. Is Windows something special, so it must have special program names??? I don't understand why so many Win32 programs are called a) Winsomething b) Windows something c) something32 Any idea? When I see "something for Windows" or "something for Linux", that's ok. So I preffer "SimCoupe for Win32". This is only my opinion. > > The "table" shows how the framerate changes when i set "frameskip" and > > "accurate mode 3". > > mode 3 on --- 175fps with "skip auto" --- 142fps with "skip none" > > mode 3 off --- 50fps with "skip auto" --- 25fps with "skip none" > > Which window mode? (1x1? 2x2? 3x3?) What color depth? etc Any mode. I use ATI Rage 128 which has hw acceleration in all modes. > > 1. I though "skip none" should be the fastest. I can see "skip auto" is > > faster. A bug? > > A bug in your logic, perhaps. When frameskip is set to 'none' it doesn't > skip frames. (Hence 'Frameskip None'). In other words it tries to redraw the > screen every frame. When frameskip is set to 'auto' it will automatically > skip frames. (Hence 'Frameskip Auto'). In other words, it will NOT try to > redraw the screen every frame. In other words, for some frames, it will > ignore redrawing the screen for that frame. This means it does less work > therefore quicker emulation therefore more frames per second. > > However, that really only applies if Sync To 50Hz is disabled. If Sync To > 50Hz is enabled, FrameSkip Auto should never drop below 50Hz! I don't understand why frameskip auto skips frames when the speed is higher than 50Hz. Where is the reason of skipping frames when the speed is over 50? MAME don't do this. (I still talk about MAME since I like it, and I think it is very well-written software.) > And are you using 1x1 mode or 2x2 mode or 3x3 mode? And what is your current > desktop resolution and color depth? And what is the make / model of your > video card? And what version drivers are you using? And you do realise that > the operating system you are running is a Beta version (what with it being > unreleased n'all). Try again with Win95 or Win98 and very recent drivers. Video mode is irrelevant. I just want to compare the other options to each other. I'm not interested in excact fps values. I just wonder why some options gives less fps than others. Also, I use Win2000. That's reality. Somebody must do the "beta" testing. ;-) We have 22 computers on Win2000 and I must say it is not a beta version. If any application don't run on Win2000 rc2, it probably won't work on the final as well. > > 2. Mode 3 off should generate 320x240 picture --> i.e. faster. But it is > > slower. A bug? > > Disabling 'accurate mode 3' will only generate a 320x240 picture if you're > running WinCoupe full screen (But if you're running WinCoupe full screen how > are you measuring the fps??) And why doesn't it generate 320x240 windowed? This is weird. > > Also, these all I've get with "frameskip auto". When "Frameskip none" > > and "mode 3 on" I get 130fps (less than "frameskip auto" > > No you don't. You just already said that with Frameskip none and mode 3 on > you get 142 fps. > Which is it? 142fps or 130fps? (It's an farily large difference, the fps > shouldn't fluctuate that much I don't think) I write what I see. What else can I do? There are too many numbers. I lost inside this all. I can't help..... :( > I haven't seen Si's source code for WinCoupe. However, your comment sounds a > little insulting. I think the point is though that putting dirty update code > back into WinCoupe is essentially more trouble than its worth at this stage. > Especially since memory writes now seem to be quicker without it! Look, I am not an Englishman, so I can hardly know what "looks a little bit insulting". Please understand my words in this scope. > > Mame uses dirty rectangles (the thing you call "dirty lines") and it > > benefits from > > it. You're right, that it can slow the whole emulator. But how much? A > > little bit. > > Question: How can an emulator 'benefit' from using a dirty rectangle update > scheme if it slows the whole emulator down? (Or have I missed the point > again?) I can slow the emulation somethimes. Do you understand? Emulation benefits from dirty rectangles, but in some cases (in the specific games) it is slower. This is obvious. I dodn't say that when using dirty rectangles the emulation is always slower. > saasound.dll development is temporarily on hold whilst I try to get my head > round a new high-quality mode. > Latest version is still 2.01 And what about that new SendCommand method (sorry if it names a bit different). > > D a v e > Aley
