Poll: Would you like this system in PCSX2?
[Show Results]
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New automated memcard system
So,the team is thinking of implemented a new automated memcard system as follows:

1) Memcard 1 would be game specific, and created/loaded per game.
2) Memcard 2 would be a global memcard, so that you can mix game saves if necessary.
3) Possibly there would be a checkbox that you can press to switch Memcard 1 or 2 between "global" and "game-specific"

The whole system would be optional meaning whoever doesn't want it can disable it.
So this means that whenever each game is loaded,PCSX2 will create a new memcard file (with its' CRC at some point of the filename).Whenever you play that game again,the emulator will load the specific memcard automatically for that game.
This way,you will have a memcard for each of your games,dedicated to it.This means more space for your game saves and better organization.

But,this also means 8mb / game memcards.Of course if you make the memcard folder NTFS compressed that number can be halved depending on how full your memcards are (the more full the less they compress).
Another issue discussed would be unnecessary code bloat (not that much) for an optional feature.

Of course this all would mean you'd have to either manually rename your old memcards to the new names, or transfer the savegames through bios.

If you use savestates regularly, then there is as of now a chance to kill your memory card, and all saves for each game you play if you keep mixed memory cards.
With this system in place you will only lose one game saves, because each game saves to its own memcard

I'm posting this poll to see what the public thinks of this.It does NOT mean that this poll will force us to implement it or scrap it,but it will affect the decision on some part.

Please do write why you're in favout or against this

EDIT: uh, we've run into a "small" problem. 2 game discs will NOT work with this idea. (The user would have to manually copy the saves, or rename the memory card.)
You can still vote, we're interested, but this idea will probably be scrapped and/or implemented in steps.
[Image: newsig.jpg]

Sponsored links

I think this sound like a good idea.

I would suggest it as a optional feature that start disabled, but can be turned on Smile
Yes, and there's one more reason besides the ones bositman posted:

If you use savestates regularly, then the chance to kill your memory card (and all saves for each game you play)
i pretty high. With this system in place the worst that could happen is that you loose that one game specific card.
And even that risk is reduced, because only that one game will ever write to it.
Added the bit about:
Of course this all would mean you'd have to either manually rename your old memcards to the new names, or transfer the savegames through bios.
useless functioning.... its only for the beta testers or the average hardcore gamer a good thing Tongue
<.< *was labeled as average HARDCORE GAMER....*
please speak for your self^^

Edit: wah I almost forgot my comment^^ with NTFS the memorycards are 1/10 in size so (for most?) i't wouldn't be a memory problem
I think it would be a useful option cause I lost memorycard to savestates once

but i just have to ask^^ what would happen if I run the bios? would there be a memcard for bios in slot 1? (because then i would have problems with transfering between memcards)
Chicken is not Vegan?


I vote to yes.
Notebook ASUS A43TA|CPU AMD Llano APU A6-3400m Triple core (1 core disable) OC to 2.6+Ghz|GPU CF|HD 6520 400Mhz/667Mhz iGPU|HD6650M OC 780Mhz/985Mhz dGPU|RAM 8GB DDR3 1333|Windows 7 Ultimate Sp.1 x64 bit.
>> Emulation speed differs for each game. There will be some you can run fast easily, but others will simply require more powerfull hardware <<.
i'm disagree of this feature.
Main Hub:i5-4670(3.4Ghz Factory Clocked),ATi Radeon HD7770(GDDR5+128-bit+1GB),Win 10 SL(x64),ASUS H8M-E,8GB DDR3 RAM
Some reasons would also help people Tongue
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Sticked for better visibility

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)