saturn emu noob

[raphdragon02]

wazzup yall?

i've been tryin' to get into saturn emulation lately [always wanted to play panzer dragoon]. i got both satourne and ssf. but i got no idea on how to get the games to run. i play my games in an old dell inspiron laptop [kinda obsolete] but it still runs psx games smoothly. however, with saturn emulation, totally different story. ssf won't even open up [i get a "paging file size not large enough" error] and when i run satourne it runs kinda slow [29/60 fps] and can't get past the bios [reads the drive as empty]. any of you guys plz help?

computer has intel pentium 3 [1600mhz] processor
256mb ram.
nvidia tnt video card.

[Borisz]

That computer wont run any Saturn emu at playable speeds.

[raphdragon02]

a'ight

then what r the min req's to run it?

[Borisz]

min config for SSF

[raphdragon02]

cool thnx!

[Watermark]

All Saturn emulators basically suck. You can't play them without a ridiculously powerful machine that costs at least one thousand dollars.

I don't think people have put much time into the Saturn emulators, while with the PS1 emulators people have been dedicating years of their lives to it. PS1 emulators have MUCH more speed than the Saturn emulators, even though the Saturn was a slower system. It's probably because of popularity. Also, the Saturn emulators just started being released, and as most emulator users have relatively powerful systems now, they just didn't decide to focus as much on speed as did the PS1 programmers, who had to program for speed back in 2000. Sucky situation for people who want to play Saturn games on a slower system.

Satourne seems to have decent speed, but I can't get it to load Panzer Dragoon Saga.

[JKKDARK]

Originally Posted by Watermark

All Saturn emulators basically suck. You can't play them without a ridiculously powerful machine that costs at least one thousand dollars.

I don't think people have put much time into the Saturn emulators, while with the PS1 emulators people have been dedicating years of their lives to it. PS1 emulators have MUCH more speed than the Saturn emulators, even though the Saturn was a slower system. It's probably because of popularity. Also, the Saturn emulators just started being released, and as most emulator users have relatively powerful systems now, they just didn't decide to focus as much on speed as did the PS1 programmers, who had to program for speed back in 2000. Sucky situation for people who want to play Saturn games on a slower system.

Satourne seems to have decent speed, but I can't get it to load Panzer Dragoon Saga.

Sega Saturn has 8 processors. If you think it's so easy, then where's your Saturn emulator? Upload your perfect Saturn emulator here or get the fcuk off.

[Bubbafat]

Geez jkk no need for flamming, although that is true.

__________________

[Borisz]

Originally Posted by Watermark

All Saturn emulators basically suck. You can't play them without a ridiculously powerful machine that costs at least one thousand dollars.

I don't think people have put much time into the Saturn emulators, while with the PS1 emulators people have been dedicating years of their lives to it. PS1 emulators have MUCH more speed than the Saturn emulators, even though the Saturn was a slower system. It's probably because of popularity. Also, the Saturn emulators just started being released, and as most emulator users have relatively powerful systems now, they just didn't decide to focus as much on speed as did the PS1 programmers, who had to program for speed back in 2000. Sucky situation for people who want to play Saturn games on a slower system.

Satourne seems to have decent speed, but I can't get it to load Panzer Dragoon Saga.

A few things I'd point out (other then the obvious):
- The Saturn was faster then the PSX. Also had more RAM and higher resolution modes while we are at it. (but it was harder to code for, due to the dozen cpus inside, ALL which need to be implemented, with all of their thousand functions (that the psx had to do in all software), and must be kept in synch, in an emulator)
- Saturn emulators have been around since years - SSF was started sometimes late in 1999. In fact, it even became much faster over time. (compare ver 0.06 to ver 0.08, you'll see)
- Dual Core cpus that can run ssf fine can be bought for less then 200$.
- It's not about popularity, if it were, the 32x wouldn't be emulated at all.
also:
- you signed up just for that one post?

[Watermark]

Originally Posted by JKKDARK

Sega Saturn has 8 processors. If you think it's so easy, then where's your Saturn emulator? Upload your perfect Saturn emulator here or get the fcuk off.

The Sega Saturn had two CPU's and several other processors. I realize that. It was highly parrelled for it's time. But forgive me for being a little bit peeved whenever I load up a PS1 emulator and get 100 frames a second and I load up a Saturn emulator and get about 2 frames a second. The modern Saturn emulators, quite obviously, are not coded for speed.

Also, you're argument is ad hominem. Even if I could code a perfect emulator it wouldn't make yours any better.

Originally Posted by Bubbafat

Geez jkk no need for flamming, although that is true.

It is not true, and the argument was completely logically fallacious.

A few things I'd point out (other then the obvious( like what?)):
- The Saturn was faster then the PSX . Also had more RAM and higher resolution modes while we are at it. (but it was harder to code for, due to the dozen cpus inside, ALL which need to be implemented, with all of their thousand functions (that the psx had to do in all software), and must be kept in synch, in an emulator)

1: It was techincally faster than the PS1 because it was parrallel, yes. I don't think many programmers truly took advantage of this.

2: I don't know. It had 2 MB of RAM, right?

3: It didn't have dozens of CPU's. It had two CPU's. It had dozen's of processors, but so dose, techinally, the computer you're using.

4: Pardon me for being peeved at the fact that Saturn emulators run at about 5% of the speed of PS1 emulators.




- Saturn emulators have been around since years - SSF was started sometimes late in 1999. In fact, it even became much faster over time. (compare ver 0.06 to ver 0.08, you'll see)

PS1 emulators have had a lot more manpower invested on them. Also, Saturn emulators all see to be imports. Well, I guess that's not surprising, considering the systems upopularity in America...


- Dual Core cpus that can run ssf fine can be bought for less then 200$.

You'd have to buy a new motherboard for that. And if you're going to buy a new motherboard, why not a new computer itself? Computer prices have fallen recently, but if you want something that can play modern games you have to pay at least 1000 for it. I bet you could get a dual core system for about 600, but all it would be good for would be playing the saturn games and browsing the internet, and if that's all you're going to be doing just go and ebay a saturn.

- It's not about popularity, if it were, the 32x wouldn't be emulated at all.
also:

The 32X probably wasn't as difficult to emulate for as the Saturn, since it was less parrallel, and none of the games took advantage of the parralel nature at all.

- you signed up just for that one post?

Everyones gotta start somewher, bud.

---

Last edited by Watermark; February 20th, 2007 at 23:05.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[Borisz]

oh what the heck, I'm in the mood.

The Sega Saturn had two CPU's and several other processors.

Two main cpus, one sound cpu, a sound DSP, a sound synth chip, an SH1 controlling the cd logic, a microcontroller handling all input peripherials, 2 video processors that each had more features hardcoded into them that the psx had in total, and a digital signal processor that held together the whole architecture.
PSX had a main cpu (that hosted a geometry and a compression processor), a gpu, and a sound cpu.
I hope you see the difference there.

The Saturn was complex, overly complex, just properly listing all the resolution modes it handled would take up a half page here. The video processors supported more features then any other 2d machine that came before or after up to this day. The sound chip had a full-fledged synthetizer in it that had virtually no limitations other then memory. And so on. Adding support for all of those cpus takes a ton of time, and even more patience. Moreover, psx emulators rely a lot on hardware acceleration, you can't do that on the Saturn effectively (not without a ton of bugs).

The reason the only useful Saturn emulators were made by japanese is more related to the incredible sense of duty that japanese have, and not to the popularity of the console: there have been at least 10 saturn emulators so far, maybe 4 of them are still under developement (counting MAME), and only SSF can play games properly.

But forgive me for being a little bit peeved whenever I load up a PS1 emulator and get 100 frames a second and I load up a Saturn emulator and get about 2 frames a second.

I just uncapped the speed in SSF and got 90fps in the bios (110fps on loading screens), on my entry-level athlon x2 3800 (110$ on newegg), and it used only 70% of it according to the task manager. Then I loaded up a ps1 emu and got half billion configuration and plugin wizards.

2: I don't know. It had 2 MB of RAM, right?

Psx had 2mb main, 1mb video, 512 sound.
Saturn had 2mb main, 1,5mb video, 512 sound, 512 cdrom cache, and 1mb/3mb expansion cards.
Compare something like Marvel vs Streetfighter to see the difference. The Psx version was laughably pathetic, had no tag team, some characters had as bad a 2 frame standing animations. Saturn version was arcade perfect.

3: It didn't have dozens of CPU's. It had two CPU's. It had dozen's of processors, but so dose, techinally, the computer you're using.

Not dozens, but a dozen. Well, nine, to be true, but it was just a figure of speech. How does my computer comes into this anyway?

4: Pardon me for being peeved at the fact that Saturn emulators run at about 5% of the speed of PS1 emulators.

Write a better emulator if you don't like it. Or upgrade your computer. Or buy a Saturn. win/win scenario.

You'd have to buy a new motherboard for that. And if you're going to buy a new motherboard, why not a new computer itself? Computer prices have fallen recently, but if you want something that can play modern games you have to pay at least 1000 for it. I bet you could get a dual core system for about 600, but all it would be good for would be playing the saturn games and browsing the internet, and if that's all you're going to be doing just go and ebay a saturn.

I spent WAY less then 1000$ on my PC, back when dual core was relatively new and high priced. Interestingly, I can not just play emulators and browse the net but also watch hdtv (720p) movies, listen to 5.1 audio, play modern games, do graphical works and word processing, recode movies and audio, etc. with it. You are doing some serious miscalculations there.

The 32X probably wasn't as difficult to emulate for as the Saturn, since it was less parrallel, and none of the games took advantage of the parralel nature at all.

Oh, it was very close. Remember it had the whole Megadrive hardware underneath it, which had to be emulated AND synced together. Ever noticed why a Megadrive emulator runs on a Pentium 133 while 32x needs a ghz to run fine?

[Watermark]

oh what the heck, I'm in the mood.


Two main cpus, one sound cpu, a sound DSP, a sound synth chip, an SH1 controlling the cd logic, a microcontroller handling all input peripherials, 2 video processors that each had more features hardcoded into them that the psx had in total, and a digital signal processor that held together the whole architecture.
PSX had a main cpu (that hosted a geometry and a compression processor), a gpu, and a sound cpu.
I hope you see the difference there.


MMMMKKK...



The Saturn was complex, overly complex, just properly listing all the resolution modes it handled would take up a half page here. The video processors supported more features then any other 2d machine that came before or after up to this day. The sound chip had a full-fledged synthetizer in it that had virtually no limitations other then memory. And so on. Adding support for all of those cpus takes a ton of time, and even more patience. Moreover, psx emulators rely a lot on hardware acceleration, you can't do that on the Saturn effectively (not without a ton of bugs).


MMMMMkkkkk....


The reason the only useful Saturn emulators were made by japanese is more related to the incredible sense of duty that japanese have, and not to the popularity of the console: there have been at least 10 saturn emulators so far, maybe 4 of them are still under developement (counting MAME), and only SSF can play games properly.


Still, if the Saturn sold anything in America, you'd see at least one American Saturn emulator. I haven't seen any. Satourne seems to be European.


"I just uncapped the speed in SSF and got 90fps in the bios (110fps on loading screens), on my entry-level athlon x2 3800 (110$ on newegg), and it used only 70% of it according to the task manager. Then I loaded up a ps1 emu and got half billion configuration and plugin wizards."

I'm screwing around SSF on a 1.5 GHZ machine. It's pretty sad. 5 frames a second on SSF. Satourne won't run Panzer Dragoon, but the Bios clocks in at 20 FPS.


Psx had 2mb main, 1mb video, 512 sound.
Saturn had 2mb main, 1,5mb video, 512 sound, 512 cdrom cache, and 1mb/3mb expansion cards.
Compare something like Marvel vs Streetfighter to see the difference. The Psx version was laughably pathetic, had no tag team, some characters had as bad a 2 frame standing animations. Saturn version was arcade perfect.


MMMKKKK...


Not dozens, but a dozen. Well, nine, to be true, but it was just a figure of speech. How does my computer comes into this anyway?


I'm just saying, the parallel nature of the Saturn shouldn't make the emulators for the system run so very badly on my computer. Satourne runs fine. It just doesn't load PANZER DRAGOON SAGA, dammit!


Write a better emulator if you don't like it. Or upgrade your computer. Or buy a Saturn. win/win scenario.



Why don't you write a better emulator? Logical fallacy. The fact that I can't write an emulator program doesn't mean Saturn emulators are up to par with their PS1/N64 counterparts.


I spent WAY less then 1000$ on my PC, back when dual core was relatively new and high priced. Interestingly, I can not just play emulators and browse the net but also watch hdtv (720p) movies, listen to 5.1 audio, play modern games, do graphical works and word processing, recode movies and audio, etc. with it. You are doing some serious miscalculations there.


You can play modern games. Maybe Vista chess. But you obviously skimped on the graphics card and memory to get the dual core processor.


Oh, it was very close. Remember it had the whole Megadrive hardware underneath it, which had to be emulated AND synced together. Ever noticed why a Megadrive emulator runs on a Pentium 133 while 32x needs a ghz to run fine?

Emulators, however, are usually very CPU intensive, while not putting near as much pressure on the GPU or the memory. So a cheapo dual-core system is good for emulation.

---

Last edited by Watermark; February 21st, 2007 at 02:22.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[JKKDARK]

First of all, stop double posting. There's an edit button that you should use. Since you are new to the internet, you must learn about the Quote function; please use (QUOTE)text here(/quote), but adding [] and not (). Like this:

Originally Posted by Watermark

lol I don't know how to write

Back on topic. What are you trying to do with posting "MK"? It's you way to show that you were totally wrong? Why you can't answer like a normal person?
You say you can't write a Saturn emulator. How can you insult what the developers did? They are making the emulator free for us and you dislike their job?
PlayStation/Nintendo 64 emulation is more easy, even you don't know the hardware specifications.
If you can't get one of the latest computers, then get a job. And who knows, maybe you can get a dual core computer soon.
And Dreamcast emulators are not CPU intensive.

[shashClp]

Originally Posted by Watermark

Still, if the Saturn sold anything in America, you'd see at least one American Saturn emulator. I haven't seen any. Satourne seems to be European.

And your argument being? That's nonsense...

Originally Posted by Watermark

I'm just saying, the parallel nature of the Saturn shouldn't make the emulators for the system run so very badly on my computer. Satourne runs fine. It just doesn't load PANZER DRAGOON SAGA, dammit!

False. If you've a highly parallel console that requires tight synchronization, that avoids the possibility of using efficient cpu recompilers, which are the base for fast emulation. That without mentioning cpu synchronization emulation problems, memory constraints, and more.

You haven't still made a single valid point why saturn emulation should be faster, please do so, or accept that isn't possible.

__________________
Emulator development blog

[Borisz]

I'm screwing around SSF on a 1.5 GHZ machine. It's pretty sad. 5 frames a second on SSF. Satourne won't run Panzer Dragoon, but the Bios clocks in at 20 FPS.

I got 60fps in the Bios on my old 2ghz Athlon64 3100, before I had Dualcore. Dunno what kind of craptacular old computer you have to get 5 fps. Or maybe you are just using a 4 year old version of SSF, which was many times slower?

I'm just saying, the parallel nature of the Saturn shouldn't make the emulators for the system run so very badly on my computer.

Actually it's the thing that DOES make it slow. But you are making it look like it's slower then it normally is.

Why don't you write a better emulator? Logical fallacy. The fact that I can't write an emulator program doesn't mean Saturn emulators are up to par with their PS1/N64 counterparts.

Well maybe you should go and do something about it then! Arguing will get you nowhere. Spreading the bad word about how 4 year old emulators don't work on your severly outdated system won't get you anywhere either.

You can play modern games. Maybe Vista chess. But you obviously skimped on the graphics card and memory to get the dual core processor.

Heroes of M&M 5, actually. The only time I have Memory problems is when I work with multiple 6000x3000 pictures in Photoshop, and the only time I get problems with my gpu is when i want to run something in 1600x1200 with 4xfsaa (which I would never do even with a buffed up card). I do plan on buying a new card, once the lite 8xxx cards come out and push prices down.

Still, if the Saturn sold anything in America, you'd see at least one American Saturn emulator. I haven't seen any. Satourne seems to be European.

Those things won't have a thing to do with each other - the Megadrive was more popular in the USA then anywhere else in the world, yet the only two useful emulators for it are made by a guy living in the UK (Steve Snake) and France (Stef).

Emulators, however, are usually very CPU intensive, while not putting near as much pressure on the GPU or the memory. So a cheapo dual-core system is good for emulation.

And for watching hd movies, converting video, converting audio, editing pictures, computing permutation tables, and so on... mmmmk?

[eurythmech]

Hi all, trying to get this back on topic...

Exactly where do I begin if I want to learn how to run Saturn emulators?
I right now have SSF, Satourne, and a few others.

But I'm nowhere near understanding how they work.
I want to play my beloved SF3

Is there a step-by-step guide somewhere?

[shroud72]

I hope its ok to post this link, its a step by step guide to get SSF and Cassini working. Cassini isn't near as compatible as SSF but it has much lower system requirements. Also this guide has some tips on optimizing the speed of SSF.
This guide has helped me when I first started playing with Saturn emulation so I'm sure it will help someone else.

*Removed*

---

Last edited by refraction; March 17th, 2007 at 15:33..

[refraction]

Sorry, no linking to Cassini here, it is a hack of sega's commercial emu. also that forum had links to romsites on it, which we also cant allow

__________________

http://www.pcsx2.net
Intel i7 920 @ 3.4Ghz, POV GTX 570 1.3Gb, 1.8Tb HD space, 6Gb OCZ Reaper PC3-14400 Triple Channel
Dont PM me for help, use the forums, thats what its for!

My Chip16 Emulator RefChip16 http://code.google.com/p/refchip16/

[fivefeet8]

Originally Posted by raphdragon02

computer has intel pentium 3 [1600mhz] processor
256mb ram.
nvidia tnt video card.

Current versions of SSF require SSE2 to run. A P3 doesn't support SSE2 instructions, but I don't believe there are P3s' clocked at 1.6 ghertz. Older version of SSF didn't require it, but will most likely be much slower.

Your best bet is to do a search for other saturn emulators. There is an unmentionable Saturn Emulator which will run decently on older computers, but it's compatibility is no where near what current versions of SSF are capable of.

Originally Posted by Watermark

All Saturn emulators basically suck. You can't play them without a ridiculously powerful machine that costs at least one thousand dollars.

This system will run SSF absolutely fine.

CompUSA.com: HP Pavilion a1700n Minitower - RK572AA#ABA - Computers » Desktop PCs

Much less than $1000.

__________________
Play emulated games online
Main Rig||Intel i7 2600k @4.4 ghz|2x4 gb DDR3 1600|Asrock Extreme7 Gen3|EVGA GTX670 2GB|EVGA GTX460 PhysX|2x Seagate 160gb SATA150 Raid0|250 gb Samsung SATA2 HD| OCZ 240GB SSD SATA3 |NEC 3520 4x/8x DVD+R/RW DL burner|Rosewill 1000 Watt|40" Sony Bravia 1080p|Logitec 5.1 Speaker System w/10" Sub|Windows 7 64bit Ultimate||

SimplyBuyIt - Health&Nutrition

---

Last edited by fivefeet8; March 19th, 2007 at 07:16.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost