Printable View
That Mad Katz controller, looks like it added those buttons at a pretty steep angle.
well that reply goes either way, not sure who was replying to who.Quote:
Originally Posted by zyrobs
Not sure if the VMU turned out to be useful or not, but it could've been ditched just to keep the controller a little more conventional, with the cord coming out the top of the controller.
I always pictured the VMU starting out as one thing and then gradually progressing. Hopefully it would have jumped significantly at each incremental upgrade like a Super System Card or Gameboy. But otherwise I expected that four years after I bought my first VMU I would have wanted to buy many other types to keep up with my saves alone. The Nexus Memory card satisfied this felt need for the Dreamcast's life times two.
I was never going to be into portable gaming, but if they managed to figure out some sort of shenanigans that involved a VMU and Arcade ports I would have jumped all over it.
If you're talking about the 6 button Genesis pad, that's 8 buttons, not 7 (and 12 overall separate input signals including the d-pad).Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
SNES has 6 action buttons plus start and select. Sega 6 button pad has 6 face buttons, start, and mode (in the original configuration a quite useful action button too -less so in the later Genesis 3 configuration). So the same actually, while the Saturn had 1 more than the SNES and the 3D pad added the "analog" stick and triggers (both use magnetic proximity sensors, not potentiometers -then again, the N64 doesn't use pots either, but a ball-mouse-like mechano-optical wheel thing).Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
But yeah, DC controller is worse than the Saturn 3D controller . . . ergonomics aren't really better either. Moderately improving on the 3D pad would have been a great route though (even if just doing minor ergonomic tweaks -though as it was, it was fine, and as good or better than the competition). The d-pad, buttons, triggers, and overall ergomonics were superior to the DC and the stick design is kind of hit or miss in either case (each has trade-offs . . . both are OK -Saturn stick mainly could have used a little more resistance, more like the contemporary PC Gravis Xterminator stick).
A 2nd analog stick would have been nice, but not totally necessary until a bit later. (more so since adding it could screw up ergonomics of the face buttons . . . which they did anyway with the DC pad, but I'm speaking relative to the Saturn 3D controller design)
Huh, so aside from going dual analog, they also could have gone the dual d-pad route, or used a directional hat/nub like the Xterminator did. ;) (variable/analog stick would be better for most cases though, even as a nub -which could mean better retaining saturn-like button placement ergonomics too) Plus, the "extra" d-pad could have been slaved as more buttons instead. (like shoulder buttons or "bumpers" to complement the triggers)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Is the DC stick really that sensitive? I didn't really notice that compared with contemporaries. Maybe more so compared to PS sticks (maybe 360), but not really compared to Xbox or GC. (speaking in the context of nice, tight, non worn out 1st party controllers, of course)Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
How is this a GOOD thing though? The cord at the bottom is just an annoyance in my experience. Sure it allowed the VMU placement more easily, but there could have been alternatives to that too. (MS managed front-mounted expansion slots on controllers just fine, plus they could have stuck with the nested expansion model for the Saturn 3D pad with the detachable cord)Quote:
Originally Posted by zyrobs
I was talking about realtime rendered cutscenes, not FMV. The context was, instead of using normal game engine models, to have special higher-quality models for cutscene use. Crazyace covered most of the trade-offs there though, namely that many games may already be more GPU bottlenecked so cutscenes wouldn't gain much anyway. (though in those cases, you could also modify scene management to make for smaller overall areas and shorter draw distance, less clipping/culling needed, etc, to better focus on the detail of a small scene not typical of actual gameplay)Quote:
Decoding FMVs took a lot of power on older consoles unless they had extra decoding hardware to off-load the burden.
Funnily enough I think both the PS1 and 2 had those (MJPEG and MPEG2).
But, I think more games used in-game engines by that point because 1. they were sufficiently good looking, and 2. they used significantly less space on the disc.
It still would have used more space than using the native game engine to handle everything, but should have saved lots of space over streaming FMV, and potentially could have higher quality for some things than FMV would allow.
I found the Dreamcast Analog stick to be much more accurate when playing Sonic Adventure over the Gamecube Analog stick. It could be the octagonal hole on the Gamecube controller causing the stick to not smoothly turn, but the Dreamcast analog stick just seemed to be more fluid and precise.
I don't have Sonic Adventure for the GameCube.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
But otherwise, I gotta say the GameCube probably has the best analog stick ever.
F-Zero GX comes to mind. That game won't be possible with any other analog stick.
The Dreamcast still has a good analog stick. Its stiff, but at least It actually feels like a ball, compared to the PS2 with its oval-shaped analog sticks.
Stiffness = more sensitivity. I've tested the PS2 Dual Shock, Xbox 360 and Dreamcast pads in various PC games using Pinnacle Game Profiler. The Dreamcast Analog stick and triggers always win in sensitivity and general lack of dead zone. The PS2 and Xbox 360 pads area minimum of 10% dead zone in the middle. That lack of resistance your thumbs have been trained to like makes that first 10% completely useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
I prefer ANY other analog stick to the abortion that is the N64 analog stick. :yuck: :furious:
Seriously, even the Atari 5200 stick is better.
It seems that while you're playing the N64, you don't realize how crappy the analog stick is.
But then once you're actually observing the controller, you realize just how bad, and fragile that stick is.
Back in the day I just bought a couple Saturn pad adapters from EB and use Japanese Saturn pads for non-analog 2D Dreamcast games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
That sounds like a smart thing to do. Because we all know the Saturn pad, is, flawless.
Yup, I use my Saturn Hori Joystick for Dreamcast games that need precise digital controls.
How about Sonic Adventure 2? . . . Sonic Adventure DX has other known problems in general compared to the DC original, including control wise, but SA2 vs SA2B should be a lot more even given the amount of optimization that saw on the GC. (at least compared to DX)Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
I've honestly never had a problem with Nintendo's octagonal ring thing. OTOH, level of wear on the controller could matter too. DC pads seem to hold up better than others in terms of forming dead spots and/or losing spring tension.
They do have the issue of losing their grip texture with wear . . . albeit rubberized contemporaries have the issue of sometimes peeling off completely -N64 has neither problem, but some people have issues with its texture too. (I don't have that problem really . . . I only get sore thumbs from pushing on the edges of the stick, not the middle -super pad sticks are worse there, and the DC pad isn't really any better in that area -would be if the bottom lip of the stick was more smoothly tapered -Saturn and Xterminator "stick" designs work better for me in this area though, they're more like pads than sticks)
I wouldn't directly use "stiffness" as "sensitivity" . . . I liken stiffness in control to being twitchy and overly sensitive in certain regions of control. You could have a controller with zero dead spot but still not be stiff. (ie just have that center control area "soft" with very low input value for good fine movement, and have the input value increase relatively slowly towards the center, but increase towards the outside more -ie non linear control)Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
I like it, both for comfort and general use. It DOES wear out with excessive use/abuse though, but I've never worn one badly unless it was used and already close to it when I got it. (luckily I've picked up some near mint condition ones in the last few years from good will, so no problems there :p )Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Also, heavy use in fighting games (and maybe sports games) tend to wear out analog sticks like crazy . . . the closest we came to ever doing that was heavy use in 2D-ish platformers and Smash Bros with moderately heavy wear on the horizontal axis. (leading to ~20% loose/dead spots)
I wasn't equating stiffness to sensitivity either. I was specifically addressing the statement I quoted that the Dreamcast analog stick is stiff in general. In comparing these three consoles that resistance of the analog stick was the most obvious difference in the controllers. Like I said, I had to use software to play with the dead zones and sensitivity. The Dreamcast analog stick and triggers are more sensitive than the Dual Shock or Xbox 360 analog solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
It may be stiff, but its defiantly one of the better analog sticks. It actually feels like an eyeball, how an analog stick should be.
Now all they needed was two analog sticks. And two more face buttons. Then that controller wouldn't seem so deprecated.
The silver GC controller I have (very good condition) is about as stiff as my DC controllers (in similar condition). Albeit the GC pads with heavy wear are rather soft in comparison. (don't have any DC pads with heavy wear on hand, and I can't recall the difference by memory -the issue of worn down texture and resulting polished/slipper surface is what i best remember about DC controllers with heavy wear)Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
I like the feel of the GC stick better in general, in terms of throw length and general ergonomics. (not saying anything about actual sensitivity, precision, or accuracy in-game though)
I have a strange dream.
Some day, I wanna port Spyro The Dragon to the Dreamcast. Imagine the intense graphical overall that you could give that game, especially with the textures that the Dreamcast is known for.
It makes my wonder why Insomniac didn't release any of the Spyro trilogy on the Dreamcast.
I guess that'd require alot of hacking Iso images?
Didn't Sony have some level of exclusivity for Spyro games up through most/all of the DC's active life? (there weren't any multiplat releases until after it was discontinued)
Well nonetheless Kool Kitty, what do you think of this project?
I'm already working on a Vita shooter project, but maybe I can work on both projects simultaneously.
I understand it could take maybe a week of hacking the Spyro image, before I even find a single vertices.
If they open the source code up for hope brew ports sure Spyro could be improved in every way. Just look at Rayman or Legacy of Kain Soul Reaver for the best a quick port could do with the Dreamcast's capabilities.
I could try emailing Insomniac and see if they got the source code laying around.
Yea without the source code, this could take months of trying to figure out what everything is in the iso.
Maybe I could just create an original 3D platformer, heavily inspired by Spyro. I like open-world jewel hunting.
We just need some god damn Dreamcast homebrew that isn't 2D shooters.
An all-out Bleemcast!-type project would be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
I hate fetch questing, but I definitely support the idea of an original effort rather than just porting what was essentially a Playstation version of Rare platformers. If that nutty Sonic fanbase manages to crack Sonic Adventure I will probably play whatever hacks they come up with until I get sick of them. There has to be a third person platforming game with open source by now, even if it is a PC game porting that to the Dreamcast should be relatively simple. Replacing textures and improving models probably isn't that simple though.Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
Also, forget about Bleemcast, although I think all of its various iterations have been leaked and can be tweaked to play any PS1 game. I want a Saturn emulator for the Dreamcast. It should be relatively simple to do as a high level emulator with the SH4's backward compatibility. But, since the PC emulators can't seem to shape up I guess I am just wishing it would be so.
Well the Saturn architecture is very hard to emulate, they had just under 400 processors in the Saturn.
I wanna accomplish what Spyro did for the PS1, with the Dreamcast. Spyro is probably the best looking game on the PS1.
With 64 audio channels, 8 MB VRAM with 5:1 texture compression, the SuperH-4, we could accomplish a game that makes the PS2 look a generation behind. ;)
Saturn was also programmed largely at low-level . . . and those with API use probably still add low-level tweaks. Between the heavy API use on the PSX (both 1st and 3rd party) and the relatively "standard" 3D feature set even at low-level, the PSX is far easier to emulate, same for N64 and pretty much all later consoles save PS2. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
3DO is also easier due to the forced API programming, even though the architecture isn't "typical" 3D. (that and it's still a lot simpler than Saturn, though low-level documentation is tougher to come by in general for the 3do, so low-level emulation would be tougher anyway)
Jaguar is painful to emulate though, not just the relatively complex low-level architecture, but also the smattering of odd bugs and the programming methods many developers used to work around those. (in many cases never actually finding/documenting the bugs/errors in the hardware and, instead just using trial and error to work around problematic code until it "just worked" . . . which means a lot of code that only works properly on real hardware with weird timing errors avoiding register or memory conflicts that SHOULD occur based on actual documenation -and do occur in emulators based on that- ;))
I remember looking at assembly for the SuperH 4, it wasn't that bad. I guess you could go low-level if you really want high performance.
It's not hard, it just takes a LOT of time to add in everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
On analog sticks:
DC's becomes squeaky over time. Have to clean the pad more often than the others of that gen. GC's is pretty "tight", in a good way, but the octagonal slot makes it a pain for some games, and, of course, that C-nipple was idiotic (still better than DC's "nothing", though). The texture grip on the GC analog stick was the best of that gen, though; DC's would've been right up there, but it wears out, becoming too smooth/slippery. PS2's analogs were convex sans a good grip as found on GC and DC, and PS2 had that silly symmetrical layout that Sony should've junked (in addition to the "d-buttons" layout). I think XBox Controller S is the best pad, pound for pound, of that gen. Good rubberized grips on the analog sticks, asymmetrical layout, triggers, etc.
On the idea of 3D platformer game homebrew on DC:
I'd rather a good 2.5D platformer. Maybe have some special stages, ala Sonic, in 3D, but the bulk of the game would be 3D polygonal characters, objects, etc. with gameplay on a 2D plane. Exploration can be handled similarly to how it is in those 2D Sonic games and Metroid for that matter (secret "breakable" hidden areas) and/or like in the Mario and Wonder Boy/Monster World series (going into and out of doors, etc.). Yeah...those would work pretty well in a 2.5D platformer. It would also be easier to implement overall, and not have the issue of how to implement camera control well.
The DC stick's texture also tends to wear down and become slick . . . at least if it's used really heavily/aggressively. (ie similar circumstances that would make it "squeaky" except it's irreparable)
As for texture/grip/feel, I'm rather partial to the Xbox Duke's analog sticks (I think I prefer the more convex right stick too . . . actually I swapped them and I think I like it better as the left stick). Of course, the duke has the problem of less than ideal face buttons (for mashing at least) and being too big for small hands. (OTOH the other controllers have the opposite problem, and aren't nearly as comfortable size-wise . . . except the GC pad oddly enough -one of the few small pads that's still pretty damn confortable, unlike the -technically bigger- Xbox-S or Sony's standard form factor -which I really don't care for, though the old dual analog pad was a short-lived improvement :p )
Well I got alot of time to brainstorm ideas, 2.5D, 3D.Quote:
Originally Posted by spiffyone
I need to accomplish more work on PS Vita shooter before looking into this. Which is going slow, because computer can't support OpenGL 3.
The Dreamcast sure is a weak piece of crap.
Take a look at 5:32 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMlsQELCrmA
3 million is nowhere near 60 million.
Thats like a 1:20 ratio.
No it isn't, 60 million is also ten times the PS2's maximum in game performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
Not sure about actual game examples, but in terms of raw 3D vertex throughput, the PS2 VUs are slightly less than 4x as fast as the SH4 VU, though Sony's quoted polygon rates (not countng the strip/fan-specific ones) are still proportionally higher than that difference though (66-80 million/s) . . . unless you go be the animated 3D model "effects" polygon figures (15-20 million) which are actually less than 4x the DC's quoted 8 million polygons/s.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Then there's the VU-intependent demos using streaming vertex data that show really high polygon rates (showing peak GPU performance) . . . though with both that and the raw VU performance in mind, I'd have thought some demos actually showing things close to the theoretical peak would exist too. And yeah, you've got added overhead for T&L on the VUs on top of geometry (and possibly physics), but same deal on the DC anyway (for CPU burden), and actual DC games still hit better than 1/3 the theoretical peak polygon rates. (which, porportionally speaking, would imply around 12 million polygons/s on the PS2 under similar conditions that DC games pushed 3 million)
Its just more evidence of Sony successfully brainwashing people.
That video will continue to promote the untrue specs.
But it makes me wonder, will we ever figure out how much the PS2 can actually do?
Like okay, Test Drive Le Mans did almost 5 million per second
I hear people say Jak And Daxter does 9 million per second, same with Gran Turismo 4
Or maybe we'll just never find out, because of the PS2's architecture being difficult to harness.
I was actually referring to some facts brought up earlier in this thread. Such as Sony's "How Far Have We Got" document from 2003. Check out page 13, 52,000 polygons per frame at 30FPS at best is 1,560,000 polygons per second. That is the average PS2 game as of 2003. Resident Evil 4 in 2005 was running at 900k polygons per second with none of the lighting effects and texture quality of the Gamecube original.
Also, earlier we reviewed some sources that pretty much spelled it out that the PS2's realistic in game peak was below 5 million polygons per second, although a theoretical model done in another study by EA showed that in a vacuum the system actually could render close to 18 million per second. That number was attained by rendering a high poly model once and taking the milliseconds of that single render and assuming the system could maintain that in a sustained in game environment. No similar approach has surfaced so far for the Dreamcast's performance, and all Dreamcast polygon per second figures are front facing visible on screen only as everything else is culled by the tile based renderer in the PVR2-DC.
The point I got was that was the marketing Sony was using, not that those specs had anything to do with the PS2 actually putting out games with graphics head and shoulders above the DC. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
Albeit the whole argument of technical inferiority is flawed, even if that's the case, or more importantly, perceived technical inferiority. Nintendo had huge marketshare and PR, and the SNES was marketed (and considered) technically superior by much of the early 90s market, but Sega had the advantages in certain software areas, consistently competitive marketing, and pricing. (all of which the DC had too, save consistent marketing . . . plus actual funding to keep pace with the market by 2000 -had the Saturn been closer to SMS level overall success -including financially- by late 90s market standards, they very well could have been in a position against Sony in 2000 not so unlike that against NIntendo in 1991, again at least relative to the market standards of the time . . . except with Sony's advantages, it's a bit more like if you combined the best strengths of Nintendo and NEC in 1991 -except even then Sega didn't have to deal with 2 other major competitors as the DC would have in 2001, though given how much Nintendo and MS struggled that generation, a better off Sega might have done quite well with the DC . . . not to mention the typicla 5-year console turnaround could have meant Sega's successor arriving by 2003 in Japan and 2004 in the west)
Quote:
But it makes me wonder, will we ever figure out how much the PS2 can actually do?
Like okay, Test Drive Le Mans did almost 5 million per second
I hear people say Jak And Daxter does 9 million per second, same with Gran Turismo 4
Or maybe we'll just never find out, because of the PS2's architecture being difficult to harness.
Really, with raw tech specs like that, it's still not wrong, or even lying, if it's actually based on facts. The PS1's 1 million vertices/s figure is totally legit too, it's the peak vertex throughput for the GTE . . . you aren't going to see actual games pushing that, of course, but it's still significant. (as much as ~450,000 verteces/s for an SH2 is accurate)Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Actually the big thing I take issue with in that advertized specs comparison was that the DC wasn't specced at 3 million polygons/s, but 8.
On a separate note, the GameCube's GPU is only specced for 60.75 M vertices/s, and the Xbox's 116.5 M . . . but compared to the PS2's theoretical peak, those (and the DC) manage much closer to that in reality. (even if you go by the lowest 15-20 M polygons/s spec)
Well Kool Kitty I didn't see your post before I posted mine. I'll come back to this when I haven't been awake for 20 hours. My brain is only running at like 6 Mhz right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
But sheath, I've grown aware that you're behind Game Pilgrimage. http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SATPScompare.htm
So I take it I'm not the only one that thinks the 32-bit era wasn't ready for 3D?Quote:
Nobody could have predicted that rudimentary 3D games, with graphics that warp, textures that block up when they approach the screen, and color count per texture comparable to the 8-bit NES's color palette, would have completely replaced 2D games with higher color counts, greater animation, and all around better aesthetic value. It wasn't until the Dreamcast and PS2 that 3D games contained a comparable image quality to this generation's 2D games, and 2D games had been the entire video game market since its conception.
gamepilgrimage is actually a concerted effort of gamers from about 1999 until today, I have done most of the writing while checking first with Usenet and then with forums with knowledgeable members while comparing and contrasting this with marketing and journalistic narratives. Very little of it is actually "just me," if that were the case I would have my personal library and favorites up in a My Space style page and spend all my time telling everybody about what I like(d) to play the most. More recently Barone has been helping me flesh out a lot of technical game information that is not documented anywhere online.Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
Basically the only reason I visit game related forums at all is to make sure that gamepilgrimage has as accurate and up to date facts as is possible. Forums have been disappointing me though, as nobody cites sources other than themselves. Hubris reigns.
A lot of people seem to think that, but IMO it was just the right timing for 3D to hit mainstream. The whole market was already pushing for it, and the PSX's style of hardware rendered 3D was basically the simplest texture mapped rasterized 3D you could do (aside from variables in term of alpha blending and lighting features -which you could argue the PSX actually went above the minimum in some areas). It's the same style of 3D that had just started to become mainstream on PCs (with CPU performance and programming techniques finally getting to the point to afford relatively complex software renderers) and in a similar vein to what was being pushed in the arcade. (granted, arcade stuff went straight to perspective correct texture rendering, albeit without any filtering and without smooth shading in Sega's case -Namco's System 22 could gouraud shade, but the model 2 can't)Quote:
Originally Posted by azonicrider
Sure, there were graphical limitations, but it allowed for some amazing games that otherwise simply wouldn't have been possible.
It was also just about the right time for multimedia to get pushed heavily in the mainstream, particularly building on the strengths of early good examples of that.
On a separate note though, there's an argument for 2D games of that period and how there probably could have been a much broader market for that then there ended up being had the major console makers remained as open to that as 3D. (ie not coercing developers in any direct way)
Yeah I would not say that the 32-bit consoles were too early for 3D. The comment I think azo noticed was about how "poor" 3D graphics were in comparison to what was possible in Arcades and PCs, or what would be possible in the following generation. My main point was that narrative histories were painting either the N64 or PS1 as the premiere 3D console of that generation while ignoring all of the graphical flaws and emphasizing each platforms' strengths. All of these "story time" histories paint the lowest seller as though they were peddling bad technology and consumers, infinitely smart and well researched as always, refused to buy from said "loser" for that reason. The narrative always emphasizes the technology of the "winner" and a few of the most mainstream games on said platform as THE REASON for its success.
I just think its stupid how they were trying to accomplish full 3D games on these consoles that can only render 2000 polygons per frame.