Hehe is that mean you're agreeing?

actually I wanted to try an emulator but I don't really know how it goes. i'm missing a component here.
I don't even know what the 'bios' means.
& btw, do I still need the original ps2 controller for that? can the pc controller do it too???

one more thing: for the competition I decided to make it in rounds, just like the competition I mentioned. well, one thing that should be divided into 2 parts is that ZOE2, because it has different difficulties. the SE has a harder difficulty setting than the original, which makes it different. I guess that some users here doesn't have the SE version (even myself).

@Qwerty -well, why don't you just lower the resolution to 1024x768 & record using fraps? if your computer is a monster I guess it could catch solid 60 FPS. unlike mine...

It appears that you know very little about how emulation on computers actual works. Lowering the resolution (or increasing it) makes absolutely no difference in the framerate. Why? Because the CPU is the bottleneck. It is the processor doing almost 100% of the work. The GPU is a spec of dust for how much it does in emulation compared to the CPU. Rendering PS2 material is extremely easy, but where the real hard stuff comes in is the active reverse engineering and interpreting of the PS2-to-PC. Because of the way it works, a GPU is physically and mechanically incapable of taking on this job.

For emulation, the best hardware would be two or more CPUs running in parallel. There is no modern CPU to date that has the parallel functionality. Instead, there are experimental cards that cost several tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands that feature hundreds of CPUs in parallel. The difference between these CPUs and your modern desktop/server CPUs have to do with the physical components in a wafer. The way a CPU computes is what sets it apart from a GPU (likewise the other way around); a card holding 256 CPUs in parallel computes similarly to the way CPUs can, but modern desktop/server CPUs are optimized and specialized for general and common tasks and gaming.

What are these "parallel CPU" cards for? For simulating things like the brain and human body's neuronetworks, or calculating the shortest in distance or time from one place in the world to another place. Such complexity requires parallelism. GPU cores work in parallel too, but they compute differently.



Emulating ZOE2SE at 320x240 would be no different than running it at 6400x4800. Wouldn't even matter if I had antialiasing set to 16x, 32x, or 128x (even though it would impact performance, it would be the same impact regardless of resolution).

Oh my god what a brief explanation you got there.
yeah I know nothing about this emulation thingy.

hey btw if the resolution is super high don't you think if you upload it..., can other people's pc handle the resolution???
I mean..., I dunno this but I think if the resolution is high, then the size would be high too. who wants to download MBs & MBs of video that runs only for a few minutes?



so..., you think fraps won't work???



uhh, got nothing to type..., so thanks for the info. although I don't understand it really well, but i'll try reading it another time...>_<

p/s: so i'm a little bit confused about your explanation..., can you post your PC specs???

i don't get all this mumbo jumbo ...
anyone want a cookie ?

Hey Gado, what's your pc specs???

hmm? could you be more specific?

It mostly depends on whether or not their processor is able to pump out enough horsepower to bring a decent framerate. It is recommended however that a user have a video card with Shader Model 4+ and DirectX10+ support. For $50 you could pickup a card that meets the requirements as far as that goes.

I think the minimum recommendation is a dual core processor clocked at 2.8 GHz. Having a clock of 3.2 GHz will make a significant difference over 2.8 GHz, and reaching a clock speed of 4 GHz is just all the better.

That wouldn't necessarily be the right way to go. I have seen full 1920x1440 videos with almost pixel-perfect quality through RAD codecs (I honestly have no idea how they get such insane compression ratios though). Anyway, quality to filesize has mostly to do with the video codec being used to encode the video and also the bitrate. The higher the bitrate, generally the bigger the file. Certain codecs can get you high qualities for different things without dramatically upsizing filesizes.

Fraps will work just fine. The only reason I stopped taking screenshots was because there was a bug in Fraps that I encountered where when you would take a screenshot, the height would be limited to 1200 pixels. I am not sure if they have fixed that problem now, maybe they have already (I had sent them an e-mail about it and they did get back to me saying that they were working on fixing it, as it was present in other games too). I was trying to take gigantic 1920x1440 screenshots, and Fraps would output them as 1920x1200 with the last 240 pixels simply cropped off.

Here's my latest signature from Hard Forums:

Intel C2Q Q9450 Yorkfield 12MB L2-Cache @ 3.2GHz, NVIDIA Quado FX1400 128MB PCI-E, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2-1000 (PC2 8000) Dual Channel, Corsair 750TX PSU, 500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 SATA-II, 1TB Western Digital Caviar Green WD10EADS SATA-II, Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3 (32-bit), Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP2 (64-bit)

I am in the slow process of overclocking my processor to 4 GHz stable, as my recent major upgrades have allowed me to go higher than 3.2 GHz.

"PC specs" refers to what hardware your computer is made of. See my signature for example (or right above).

Well, that would really hard for us since only a few people has high-end pc. even my computer wouldn't be able to handle it when you mentioned the minimum recommendation of 2.8 GHz (well my computer only has 2.24 GHz). I just checked the processors yesterday, & I only seen quad core with 3.++ GHz. considering the price, my dad said he would buy it sometime after I finished my school. seriously though, when that time came, I truly believe that much better processors are already on stores.



Hurr..., I believe that most people won't be able to handle that. just look at the resolution, it's super high. I wouldn't really need much that high resolution to satisfy myself. moreover I also understand how they feel about their processor capacity. so now-now, I think it's wise if you just lower the resolution to 1024x768, or maybe 1280x720. besides my plan is to promote this site to everyone so it's vital that anyone should take a look at it, without burdening them.



See? that's what you get for wanting too much...


anyway this is it, my not-so-good specs...:

Pentium Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz
2GB RAM
GeForce 9400 GT 1GB

hopefully I can still able to play new games at high performance...

Btw why are we discussing about this? my initial plan is to discuss about the competition. I haven't even get the confirmations from the other members to do this yet. & I also haven't pm the admin yet...

well, I guess it's time to tell him now, or should I get the other member's opinions???

EDIT: huhu I just sent a pm to the Admin minutes ago...

Please know that to playback any video of any resolution (including 1920x1440) takes very minimal computer power. If you have a 1024x768 desktop resolution, a video of 1920x1440 would simply and automatically be downscaled to fit the desktop resolution. If you have a 1920x1440 desktop resolution, then good for you. If you get any higher desktop resolutions than 1920x1440, the video is upscaled and technically quality is being lost.

When you upscale anything from its native/original dimensions, quality is lost and it is also sometimes obvious that a video is being upscaled; higher resolution at the cost of quality. When you downscale a video from its original dimensions, quality increases but "texture resolution" (or simply resolution) dicreases; higher quality at the cost of resolution. If a 1920x1440 video can be recorded, this would be a wiser choice over 1280x720 because you are not going to any extra measures or troubles. When you choose a lower resolution, you cannot gain the same maximum quality of a 1920x1440.

That's stupid and errorneous logic.