bsnes/hiro/qt/settings.hpp

22 lines
304 B
C++
Raw Normal View History

namespace hiro {
Update to v100r16 release. byuu says: (Windows users may need to include <sys/time.h> at the top of nall/chrono.hpp, not sure.) Unchangelog: - forgot to add the Scheduler clock=0 fix because I have the memory of a goldfish Changelog: - new icarus database with nine additional games - hiro(GTK,Qt) won't constantly write its settings.bml file to disk anymore - added latency simulator for fun (settings.bml => Input/Latency in milliseconds) So the last one ... I wanted to test out nall::chrono, and I was also thinking that by polling every emulated frame, it's pretty wasteful when you are using Fast Forward and hitting 200+fps. As I've said before, calls to ruby::input::poll are not cheap. So to get around this, I added a limiter so that if you called the hardware poll function within N milliseconds, it'll return without doing any actual work. And indeed, that increases my framerate of Zelda 3 uncapped from 133fps to 142fps. Yay. But it's not a "real" speedup, as it only helps you when you exceed 100% speed (theoretically, you'd need to crack 300% speed since the game itself will poll at 16ms at 100% speed, but yet it sped up Zelda 3, so who am I to complain?) I threw the latency value into the settings file. It should be 16, but I set it to 5 since that was the lowest before it started negatively impacting uncapped speeds. You're wasting your time and CPU cycles setting it lower than 5, but if people like placebo effects it might work. Maybe I should let it be a signed integer so people can set it to -16 and think it's actually faster :P (I'm only joking. I took out the 96000hz audio placebo effect as well. Not really into psychological tricks anymore.) But yeah seriously, I didn't do this to start this discussion again for the billionth time. Please don't go there. And please don't tell me this WIP has higher/lower latency than before. I don't want to hear it. The only reason I bring it up is for the fun part that is worth discussing: put up or shut up time on how sensitive you are to latency! You can set the value above 5 to see how games feel. I personally can't really tell a difference until about 50. And I can't be 100% confident it's worse until about 75. But ... when I set it to 150, games become "extra difficult" ... the higher it goes, the worse it gets :D For this WIP, I've left no upper limit cap. I'll probably set a cap of something like 500ms or 1000ms for the official release. Need to balance user error/trolling with enjoyability. I'll think about it. [...] Now, what I worry about is stupid people seeing it and thinking it's an "added latency" setting, as if anyone would intentionally make things worse by default. This is a limiter. So if 5ms have passed since the game last polled, and that will be the case 99.9% of the time in games, the next poll will happen just in time, immediately when the game polls the inputs. Thus, a value below 1/<framerate>ms is not only pointless, if you go too low it will ruin your fast forward max speeds. I did say I didn't want to resort to placebo tricks, but I also don't want to spark up public discussion on this again either. So it might be best to default Input/Latency to 0ms, and internally have a max(5, latency) wrapper around the value.
2016-08-03 12:32:40 +00:00
struct Settings {
Settings();
~Settings();
vector<uint16_t> keycodes;
Update to v100r16 release. byuu says: (Windows users may need to include <sys/time.h> at the top of nall/chrono.hpp, not sure.) Unchangelog: - forgot to add the Scheduler clock=0 fix because I have the memory of a goldfish Changelog: - new icarus database with nine additional games - hiro(GTK,Qt) won't constantly write its settings.bml file to disk anymore - added latency simulator for fun (settings.bml => Input/Latency in milliseconds) So the last one ... I wanted to test out nall::chrono, and I was also thinking that by polling every emulated frame, it's pretty wasteful when you are using Fast Forward and hitting 200+fps. As I've said before, calls to ruby::input::poll are not cheap. So to get around this, I added a limiter so that if you called the hardware poll function within N milliseconds, it'll return without doing any actual work. And indeed, that increases my framerate of Zelda 3 uncapped from 133fps to 142fps. Yay. But it's not a "real" speedup, as it only helps you when you exceed 100% speed (theoretically, you'd need to crack 300% speed since the game itself will poll at 16ms at 100% speed, but yet it sped up Zelda 3, so who am I to complain?) I threw the latency value into the settings file. It should be 16, but I set it to 5 since that was the lowest before it started negatively impacting uncapped speeds. You're wasting your time and CPU cycles setting it lower than 5, but if people like placebo effects it might work. Maybe I should let it be a signed integer so people can set it to -16 and think it's actually faster :P (I'm only joking. I took out the 96000hz audio placebo effect as well. Not really into psychological tricks anymore.) But yeah seriously, I didn't do this to start this discussion again for the billionth time. Please don't go there. And please don't tell me this WIP has higher/lower latency than before. I don't want to hear it. The only reason I bring it up is for the fun part that is worth discussing: put up or shut up time on how sensitive you are to latency! You can set the value above 5 to see how games feel. I personally can't really tell a difference until about 50. And I can't be 100% confident it's worse until about 75. But ... when I set it to 150, games become "extra difficult" ... the higher it goes, the worse it gets :D For this WIP, I've left no upper limit cap. I'll probably set a cap of something like 500ms or 1000ms for the official release. Need to balance user error/trolling with enjoyability. I'll think about it. [...] Now, what I worry about is stupid people seeing it and thinking it's an "added latency" setting, as if anyone would intentionally make things worse by default. This is a limiter. So if 5ms have passed since the game last polled, and that will be the case 99.9% of the time in games, the next poll will happen just in time, immediately when the game polls the inputs. Thus, a value below 1/<framerate>ms is not only pointless, if you go too low it will ruin your fast forward max speeds. I did say I didn't want to resort to placebo tricks, but I also don't want to spark up public discussion on this again either. So it might be best to default Input/Latency to 0ms, and internally have a max(5, latency) wrapper around the value.
2016-08-03 12:32:40 +00:00
struct Geometry {
int frameX = 4;
int frameY = 24;
int frameWidth = 8;
int frameHeight = 28;
Update to v106r47 release. byuu says: This is probably the largest code-change diff I've done in years. I spent four days working 10-16 hours a day reworking layouts in hiro completely. The result is we now have TableLayout, which will allow for better horizontal+vertical combined alignment. Windows, GTK2, and now GTK3 are fully supported. Windows is getting the initial window geometry wrong by a bit. GTK2 and GTK3 work perfectly. I basically abandoned trying to detect resize signals, and instead keep a list of all hiro windows that are allocated, and every time the main loop runs, it will query all of them to see if they've been resized. I'm disgusted that I have to do this, but after fighting with GTK for years, I'm about sick of it. GTK was doing this crazy thing where it would trigger another size-allocate inside of a previous size-allocate, and so my layouts would be halfway through resizing all the widgets, and then the size-allocate would kick off another one. That would end up leaving the rest of the first layout loop with bad widget sizes. And if I detected a second re-entry and blocked it, then the entire window would end up with the older geometry. I started trying to build a message queue system to allow the second layout resize to occur after the first one completed, but this was just too much madness, so I went with the simpler solution. Qt4 has some geometry problems, and doesn't show tab frame layouts properly yet. Qt5 causes an ICE error and tanks my entire Xorg display server, so ... something is seriously wrong there, and it's not hiro's fault. Creating a dummy Qt5 application without even using hiro, just int main() { TestObject object; } with object performing a dynamic\_cast to a derived type segfaults. Memory is getting corrupted where GCC allocates the vtables for classes, just by linking in Qt. Could be somehow related to the -fPIC requirement that only Qt5 has ... could just be that FreeBSD 10.1 has a buggy implementation of Qt5. I don't know. It's beyond my ability to debug, so this one's going to stay broken. The Cocoa port is busted. I'll fix it up to compile again, but that's about all I'm going to do. Many optimizations mean bsnes and higan open faster. GTK2 and GTK3 both resize windows very quickly now. higan crashes when you load a game, so that's not good. bsnes works though. bsnes also has the start of a localization engine now. Still a long way to go. The makefiles received a rather substantial restructuring. Including the ruby and hiro makefiles will add the necessary compilation rules for you, which also means that moc will run for the qt4 and qt5 targets, and windres will run for the Windows targets.
2018-07-14 03:59:29 +00:00
int menuHeight = 9;
int statusHeight = 9;
} geometry;
};
Update to v100r16 release. byuu says: (Windows users may need to include <sys/time.h> at the top of nall/chrono.hpp, not sure.) Unchangelog: - forgot to add the Scheduler clock=0 fix because I have the memory of a goldfish Changelog: - new icarus database with nine additional games - hiro(GTK,Qt) won't constantly write its settings.bml file to disk anymore - added latency simulator for fun (settings.bml => Input/Latency in milliseconds) So the last one ... I wanted to test out nall::chrono, and I was also thinking that by polling every emulated frame, it's pretty wasteful when you are using Fast Forward and hitting 200+fps. As I've said before, calls to ruby::input::poll are not cheap. So to get around this, I added a limiter so that if you called the hardware poll function within N milliseconds, it'll return without doing any actual work. And indeed, that increases my framerate of Zelda 3 uncapped from 133fps to 142fps. Yay. But it's not a "real" speedup, as it only helps you when you exceed 100% speed (theoretically, you'd need to crack 300% speed since the game itself will poll at 16ms at 100% speed, but yet it sped up Zelda 3, so who am I to complain?) I threw the latency value into the settings file. It should be 16, but I set it to 5 since that was the lowest before it started negatively impacting uncapped speeds. You're wasting your time and CPU cycles setting it lower than 5, but if people like placebo effects it might work. Maybe I should let it be a signed integer so people can set it to -16 and think it's actually faster :P (I'm only joking. I took out the 96000hz audio placebo effect as well. Not really into psychological tricks anymore.) But yeah seriously, I didn't do this to start this discussion again for the billionth time. Please don't go there. And please don't tell me this WIP has higher/lower latency than before. I don't want to hear it. The only reason I bring it up is for the fun part that is worth discussing: put up or shut up time on how sensitive you are to latency! You can set the value above 5 to see how games feel. I personally can't really tell a difference until about 50. And I can't be 100% confident it's worse until about 75. But ... when I set it to 150, games become "extra difficult" ... the higher it goes, the worse it gets :D For this WIP, I've left no upper limit cap. I'll probably set a cap of something like 500ms or 1000ms for the official release. Need to balance user error/trolling with enjoyability. I'll think about it. [...] Now, what I worry about is stupid people seeing it and thinking it's an "added latency" setting, as if anyone would intentionally make things worse by default. This is a limiter. So if 5ms have passed since the game last polled, and that will be the case 99.9% of the time in games, the next poll will happen just in time, immediately when the game polls the inputs. Thus, a value below 1/<framerate>ms is not only pointless, if you go too low it will ruin your fast forward max speeds. I did say I didn't want to resort to placebo tricks, but I also don't want to spark up public discussion on this again either. So it might be best to default Input/Latency to 0ms, and internally have a max(5, latency) wrapper around the value.
2016-08-03 12:32:40 +00:00
static Settings settings;
}