Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
very impressed
#1
i am very impressed by the progress of this emu. i remember trying to use this emu about 5 years ago and didnt work for ***** on my pc at the time. i recently jumped back on th emu scene and decided to check out the progress of pcsx2. All i can say is,Ohmy. With my current setup i can play FFX at full speed and in undeniable hd quality with only minor, negligable stuttering. I'd like to think my pc is up to pcsx2 requirements:

Asus maximus extreme 4 z
intel i7 2600k @3.4ghz
msi gtx 560 1GB
2x4GB corsair ram
windows 7 home premium
iso's loaded off a 256gb crucial ssd

but yeah, jus wanted to say thank you and to keep up this excellent work.





Reply

Sponsored links

#2
Indeed.

Spells like demi, gravity, fire (enemy/monster cast on your party), etc. in FFX and FFX-2 takes a heavy toll on my HD 6970 when playing at 6x native. The fps dip down to the low 30's from 90+ fps.
Reply
#3
yeah stuff like that. But this emualtor is so impressive it doesnt bother me. Ive been play Kingdom hearts final mix with zero slowdown.. its just like playing on an actual ps2. Thats just perfect emulation.
Reply
#4
(09-06-2011, 06:08 AM)tuanming Wrote: Indeed.

Spells like demi, gravity, fire (enemy/monster cast on your party), etc. in FFX and FFX-2 takes a heavy toll on my HD 6970 when playing at 6x native. The fps dip down to the low 30's from 90+ fps.

Well no wonder. 6x (512x416) = 3072x2496 internal resolution. Can you say overkill? Tongue I bet you wouldn't notice a difference with the naked eye from 6x to 5x or even 4x scaling, since the resolutions are so absurdly high.
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Reply
#5
x2 scaling is enough for my eyes Tongue2
Reply
#6
(09-06-2011, 04:46 PM)Bositman Wrote: Well no wonder. 6x (512x416) = 3072x2496 internal resolution. Can you say overkill? Tongue I bet you wouldn't notice a difference with the naked eye from 6x to 5x or even 4x scaling, since the resolutions are so absurdly high.

You'd be surprised at just how many people can see the difference between 5x and 6x.
Reply
#7
I wouldn't. Maybe people thinking they are seeing a difference thanks to the placebo effect.
Or maybe if they are outputting on a 50'' projector Tongue
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Reply
#8
no, i can see the improvement on my 24" display

past 4x just doesn't have any benefit to jaggies though
Reply
#9
I think that x3 or max x4 with FXAA is as effective, and with less load on the GPU compared to x5/x6... That's a personal opinion though.
[i7-3630qm/gt650m-2G/Win-7] [i7-4500u/R.HD8850m/Win-8.1] [2010-MBA/OSX-10.9.x]. Scroll smoothly with SmoothWheel for Firefox.
Reply
#10
At certain point the GPU is just making inferences on what must be that pixel coming from previous inferences about what it should be, the result is becoming somewhat more blurred albeit softer maybe. Just a question of taste and not fidelity anymore, maybe the sensation coming from My Rig can do it!

For myself, I have no problem at all giving up some quality for performance, mainly the kind of quality hardly noticed in actual gaming.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)