l have some questions. just wondering . we have gsdx video plugin (which contain dx9, dx11 and opengl) and ZeroGS for opengl.
1.why opengl should inside gsdx?
2. why not make ZeroGS as opengl video plugin only?
it will make gsdx cleaner , isn't it?.
3.is ZeroGS bottleneck?
Thank you.
1/ creating a different plugin to have OpenGL separated doesn't have any benefits. now why should I get two plugins for using Opengl renderer and D3D11 when I can rather get one ?
2 & 3/ ZeroGS has been removed from PCSX2 ages ago..
Btw we have 3 plugins
GSdx - DX9/11,OGL(and OCL...kinda)
ZeroGS - which is DX9 only to be exact
and ZZOGL - fork of ZeroGS which is OGL only
And I also don't see the point for having multiple plugins.There are ways to make it not messy.
And pcsx2 behaves in a way to don't like when changing plugings while ingame
I think the point was the name, or?
gsDX -> DX only
(zerogs/)zzOGL -> OGL only (i know zero isnt ogl)
But as already saud it doesnt make life easier and naming is irrelevant.
I think gregory commented once something like he likes the source of zzogl. Either it is nicely/clean programmed or it is a different approach than gsdx i would guess. And he would rather like to invest some time into zzogl than gsdx. Unfortunately it is well behind gsdx compatibility-wise therefore one would need many hours even getting a similar state. Therefore he decided to work on gsdx.
(12-26-2015, 02:46 PM)willkuer Wrote: [ -> ]I think the point was the name, or?
gsDX -> DX only
(zerogs/)zzOGL -> OGL only (i know zero isnt ogl)
But as already saud it doesnt make life easier and naming is irrelevant.
I think gregory commented once something like he likes the source of zzogl. Either it is nicely/clean programmed or it is a different approach than gsdx i would guess. And he would rather like to invest some time into zzogl than gsdx. Unfortunately it is well behind gsdx compatibility-wise therefore one would need many hours even getting a similar state. Therefore he decided to work on gsdx.
thanks for the answer. i believe if we work more for zzOGL, it will be better than gsdx. which willkuer stated zzOGL is clean programmed. since gsdx ogl has a lot of hack.
I havent stated anything!
I was indirectly citing something my brain believes I read once from gregory..
The whole emulation thing is a big hack. If you want to do it accurate try sw renderer. If you want to have it really accurate use the real ps2. Hw acceleration (dx/ogl hw modes) are only speedhacks.
I am not sure if putting effort into a dead branch is resonable.
Gregory still has ZeroGS , ZZOGL on the source code since it'll be useful for reference on some of the GS function and would potentially assist improving GSDX. do note that however they're not included on the compiled binaries.
Quote:zzOGL is clean programmed. since gsdx ogl has a lot of hack.
Joke of the day
i wish gregory more work on ZeroGS or zzogl.
(12-26-2015, 05:03 PM)ssakash Wrote: [ -> ]Joke of the day
Hehe,yes not a single hack visible.
Well we have crc hacks in gsdx... They are just hidden. In zerogs I count around 20. Would be interesting how many crc hacks we have in gsdx. (And then we have as well some manual gamefixes... -> HW hacks and additional Dx9 settings)
Still this is not a measure for code quality. zerogs has much lower compatibility...