Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hi,

I just wanted to know if there is any requirements to play PS1 games. I do not have a cutting-edge, gaming computer, but I only have one that can play NFS ProStreet at its lowest settings, I know it's not good. Because I tried playing Chrono Cross, the PS1 game, with ePSXe emulator and it can barely run at full speed with the lowest graphic setting. I set it to window mode, 300x200 resolution, and it still is slow. So I'm wondering what are the system requirements for me to play a PS1 game or Chrono Cross.

This is my first time using a PS1 emulator, or playing a PS1 game.

Thanks. ^^

EDIT: Might as well, put my specs here.

Summary
OS Name Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Basic
Version 6.0.6002 Service Pack 2 Build 6002
System Manufacturer ACER
System Model Aspire M1640
System Type X86-based PC
Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.00GHz, 2003 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Logical Processor(s)
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB
Total Physical Memory 1.75 GB
Available Physical Memory 730 MB
Total Virtual Memory 3.74 GB
Available Virtual Memory 2.07 GB

Display
Name NVIDIA GeForce 7050 / NVIDIA nForce 620i
Adapter Type GeForce 7050 / NVIDIA nForce 620i, NVIDIA compatible
Adapter Description NVIDIA GeForce 7050 / NVIDIA nForce 620i
Adapter RAM 256.00 MB (268,435,456 bytes)
Installed Drivers nvd3dum.dll,nvwgf2um.dll
Driver Version 7.15.11.7813
Resolution 1680 x 1050 x 59 hertz
Bits/Pixel 32
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
While that's not high end, the CPU and RAM are good enough to be out of the equation. The GPU is the weak point, but it shouldn't be struggling to play it at the lowest settings (unless you're trying to run the OpenGL 2 plug-in?).

By the way, for reference, the "minimum requirements" are something like a Pentium II (maybe ~400MHz-450MHz?), 256MB of RAM (I've done it on 128MB in Windows 2000), and a "good" video card, but that was referencing "good" in like 2001 or 2003 or something, so you can see you shouldn't be having these problems.

I'm going to guess you're trying to use the OpenGL 2 plug-in, which is probably a bad idea on that graphics chipset.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
So that means that my rig can handle PS1 games right?

I just found a solution last night. I made my main video plugin as Pete's OpenGL Driver 1.75 and just configured it from there and the game went smooth.

Before when the game was going so slow, the main video plugin set to Pete's D3D Driver 1.75, and I also tried Pete's DX6 D3D Driver 1.75.

I'm wondering what's the differences of all the plugins? And what should my configuration be set like?

EDIT: And yeah, I'm able to play Chrono Cross, but it still has crappy graphics, even the animation part of the game is so crappy. But it is running pretty smooth already, I still don't like it. :(
Here is a print screen.
 

·
God of Douchebagness™
Joined
·
9,826 Posts
first off, update your plugins because those are outdated versions, the latest is 1.77 for the D3d and 1.78 for the P.E.Op.S/OGL1. we also need to see screen shots of how you have your plugins configured.

if you are having too much trouble with epsxe then the next best thing would be to use psx instead, its easier to get things up and running and the performance would most likely be better on your hardware setup.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Download the latest versions.

Your visuals are normal. Your blowing an ~320x240 or 320x224 or so image up to ~1456x936 (odd resolution) without filtering. That's what happens when you do that. The 3D looks nicer, but the 2D goes to a mess. Use filtering, or lower the resolution. That's all you can do to combat it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Nevermind, I found a configuration guide for ePSXe in this forum which I should've done before posting.

I still might have problems, or complains, about the graphics. Should I post here if I have more questions or where should I?

Thanks guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Hello again.

Question, which video plug-in should I use?
Pete's D3D Driver 1.77
Pete's DX6 D3D Driver 1.77
Pete's OpenGL Driver 1.77
Pete's OpenGL2 Driver 2.9
And why? Also what are their differences?
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Okay, let me break them down first.

For all intents and purposes, the DirectX6 and DirectX plug-in are the same. One is just older for even weaker PCs. These use hardware rendering, via DirectX, to render the visuals. Not that DirectX itself is or isn't better than OpenGL (I'm not one to say), but as far as these plug-ins go, the DirectX versions are quite inaccurate and outdated (or at least not kept up to the standards of) compared to the OpenGL ones.

The OpenGL ones are, like the DirectX ones, hardware rendering plug-ins.

The OpenGL 1.x versions use OpenGL 1.

The OpenGL 2.x versions use OpneGL 2.

OpenGL 2, for all intents, needs a "decent DirectX 9 GPU", and for the most part, the Radeon 9600, 9500 (I put it after because it's stronger than the 9600), and GeForce FX 5700 (barely) or 5900 series are the minimums to use the plug-ins to any good length. Sure, older cards will run it, but not well and with good visuals. It's basically everything the OpenGL1 plug-in is, and more, save some downsides (like not being able to use AA), but the upsides (shaders, some that even mimic AA, etc.) more than cover for that.

There's also P.E.Op.S plug-in, which, contrare to all the above, is a software renderer. Rather than using the GPU to render things, it uses the CPU. This is the most compatible and accurate way to do it. The trade-off is the quality isn't as good, for the most part, since it renders it exactly how the Playstation would with no hardware rendering enhancements.

Now, for you, the OpenGL 2 plug-in is out of the question. The OpenGL 1 plug-in may run, but I'm not sure it will do so well. My old GeForce 4 MX440 did it "okay", and my GeForce 4 Ti4200 tore it apart. A GeForce 6200 is slightly better than the GeForce 4 Ti4200, and I'm pretty sure the 6200 is better than the onboard 7050 you have, so your performance should fall between my two old GeForce 4 cards. Therefore, I guess it will do "okay" but your mileage may vary.

The DirectX plug-ins will get the job done (forget the 6 version though), but won't be as accurate visually.

The P.E.Op.S soft plug-in is more accurate, but not as good looking, and to boot to that problem, it's virtually broken/useless in Windows Vista/Windows 7, since it renders incorrectly leading to a terribly pixelated display. In such a case, your forced to use Direct X plug-ins, or alternatively, use another emulator titled pSX. It uses built in software rendering which will get what the P.E.Op.S software plug-in would, would it be working right in these newer operating systems.

Since you're using Windows Vista, the P.E.Op.S software renderer is out of the question, so that leaves just a few other choices. The short answer is this.

Try the OpenGL 1 (not 2, it will be too slow) plug-in. If it works, good, use it. Failing that, you have a choice.

Try the DirectX plug-in. It will be more inaccurate, but perhaps better looking to you.

Try the emulator pSX. It will be more accurate, albeit maybe not as good looking to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thank you, sir. Now I see their differences.

I'm currently using OpenGL 1 and it is quite good, but of course, I'm not satisfied. At some point, it will suddenly go slow, like when I'm gonna save (F1). It also goes to really really fast I will have to use the frame limiter so that it'll go on normal speed.

Here is what my gameplay looks like now.


Also here is my settings.


Sorry if the pictures are too big, how do you make them like the thumbnails anyways?

So I already tried several kinds of settings, trying to improve the graphics without making it slow. What would be better configuration? Or do you think the graphics is already good?

Though is it better for me to use the pSX emulator? I will give it a try then, i just hope it won't cost me much time and trouble.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
of course it'll go slow when you do a full state save.

and the gfx card won't really do well without frame skipping anyway.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I'd change the Off-Screen drawing to at least 2.

Change the Framebuffer access to 4. This should add load to the CPU with it at 4, not the GPU (lower levels add load to both, so make sure it's 4).

You can uncheck the "Force 15 bit framebuffer updates". You're running in 16 bit anyway, and that only applies to 32 bit. Also, do note that most Playtation games themselves are actually only 16 bit (hence using it doesn't make things look terribly worse for you), and only the MDECs are 32 bit. However, 16 bit still goes faster during gameplay, even though using 32-bit doesn't result in improved visuals, so if you can live with the FMVs looking worse, it's a great speed up if you need it.

I'd also recommend to check "Use FPS Limit".

Make sure you leave Texture quality where it is now. The "slightly faster on some cards" may entice you for more speed, but that's referring to ATi cards. The option you have is the faster one on nVidia hardware.

You can try those things for optimization, but that won't really help speed. I don't think you'll get any faster save maybe dropping filtering.

You can try pSX. It shouldn't be any trouble. It doesn't use any plug-ins (hence the built in software rendering). If I remember right, you just have to configure the input and a few other simple quick things, and you're off. You can always try it just to see if you prefer it. Some like software rendering, and some don't.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top