Rayman 2 on PS1 classic?

[Steo]

Emulation will never beat the real hardware for retro games, it's not the same authentic experience. Sure they can be more powerful than the actual PS1, but they are also prone to many issues, with the main concern being input lag! Having no (or at least very low) Input lag is very important in retro games, especially 2D platformers like Rayman.

Emulation also needs much more processing power than the real hardware and you're always going to have at least a couple of frames of input lag. I really think that using a custom FPGA for these consoles would the best way to go about it.

[StelzenBomber]

Emulation will never beat the real hardware for retro games, it's not the same authentic experience. Sure they can be more powerful than the actual PS1, but they are also prone to many issues, with the main concern being input lag! Having no (or at least very low) Input lag is very important in retro games, especially 2D platformers like Rayman.

Emulation also needs much more processing power than the real hardware and you're always going to have at least a couple of frames of input lag. I really think that using a custom FPGA for these consoles would the best way to go about it.

that is 100% true

and yet some ppl still dont beleave or actively refuse to beleave truth and facts

[Steo]

If you play the games on the real hardware, an emulator just isn't the same. The only games I'd even play on an emulator are games like Pokémon, where input lag isn't important. Even then, I'd still rather play them on the real hardware.

Even though I said I'd rather play the NTSC version of Rayman over the PAL version, I'd still rather play the PAL version on real hardware over emulating the NTSC version.

Emulation just isn't the same, especially with the off spec timings of the real hardware. An NTSC SNES for example is about 60.08-60.10Hz, that's higher than the 59.94Hz standard. Yes the difference is small, but then you have to use vsync and that adds even more input lag.

Game Boy is another one. The Game Boy is 59.73Hz and while again this doesn't sound like much, that's lower than 59.94Hz and will cause frameskip roughly every 5 seconds. Game Boy emulators actually run faster to speed games up to 59.94Hz in attempt to rectify this, but it just annoys me because the sound is higher pitched too then.

I prefer the games to run at the intended speed without vsync issues or altered sound pitch and that's one of the main reasons I hate the PAL Mega Drive vs the NTSC Genesis. The sound is about 15-20 cents lower pitched than it should be and it's also out of sync.

I could go on and on here.

[StelzenBomber]

If you play the games on the real hardware, an emulator just isn't the same. The only games I'd even play on an emulator are games like Pokémon, where input lag isn't important. Even then, I'd still rather play them on the real hardware.

Even though I said I'd rather play the NTSC version of Rayman over the PAL version, I'd still rather play the PAL version on real hardware over emulating the NTSC version.

Emulation just isn't the same, especially with the off spec timings of the real hardware. An NTSC SNES for example is about 60.08-60.10Hz, that's higher than the 59.94Hz standard. Yes the difference is small, but then you have to use vsync and that adds even more input lag.

Game Boy is another one. The Game Boy is 59.73Hz and while again this doesn't sound like much, that's lower than 59.94Hz and will cause frameskip roughly every 5 seconds. Game Boy emulators actually run faster to speed games up to 59.94Hz in attempt to rectify this, but it just annoys me because the sound is higher pitched too then.

I prefer the games to run at the intended speed without vsync issues or altered sound pitch and that's one of the main reasons I hate the PAL Mega Drive vs the NTSC Genesis. The sound is about 15-20 cents lower pitched than it should be and it's also out of sync.

I could go on and on here.

the only emulation i know is almost as good as console is on the nintendo classics
its realy tight

[Steo]

I didnt have the best experience on that, but then it depends on your TV too. Again though, the SNES classic would likely be using 59.94Hz, not that it matters that much anyway as there is a hardware mod for the original SNES to fix sync issues with some TV's, which alters it to that speed. It's called the dejitter mod and its used to fix a shorter scanline that causes it to have sync issues on some TV's.

Sony are just using an open source emulator that we already have also, meaning it's not even their work and they're just charging us for their plastic case and a controller.

[StelzenBomber]

I didnt have the best experience on that, but then it depends on your TV too. Again though, the SNES classic would likely be using 59.94Hz, not that it matters that much anyway as there is a hardware mod for the original SNES to fix sync issues with some TV's, which alters it to that speed. It's called the dejitter mod and its used to fix a shorter scanline that causes it to have sync issues on some TV's.

Sony are just using an open source emulator that we already have also, meaning it's not even their work and they're just charging us for their plastic case and a controller.

did you have input lag?
i had as well but than i changed my tv to 4:3 and gamemode

it worked
but its still best played on a computer moniter, because buit tvs this up close hurts

[Steo]

did you have input lag?
i had as well but than i changed my tv to 4:3 and gamemode

it worked
but its still best played on a computer moniter, because buit tvs this up close hurts

I think the input lag was low, but I had a lot of audio latency. I think some TV's are just like that.

Anyway yeah a PC monitor is a good idea for those consoles, even for the OSSC. PC monitors usually have really low input lag and support far more resolutions than TV'S do. Most of those consoles are 720p anyway since 240p x3 = 720p

This is the problem with PAL though, the PAL games are 288p and will have to output 576p, which will likely look quite bad on some modern TV's.

The best way they could do it, would be to use the idea I came up with on the OSSC forum. They could bring 288p down to 270 and multiply it by 4, resulting in a nicely scaled 1080p. You would lose a slight amount from the top and bottom of the screen, though every PAL game has small black borders anyway, meaning you won't have the actual game screen cropped.

I can guarantee you that even though I could come up with that idea, Sony couldn't!

[StelzenBomber]

did you have input lag?
i had as well but than i changed my tv to 4:3 and gamemode

it worked
but its still best played on a computer moniter, because buit tvs this up close hurts

I think the input lag was low, but I had a lot of audio latency. I think some TV's are just like that.

Anyway yeah a PC monitor is a good idea for those consoles, even for the OSSC. PC monitors usually have really low input lag and support far more resolutions than TV'S do. Most of those consoles are 720p anyway since 240p x3 = 720p

This is the problem with PAL though, the PAL games are 288p and will have to output 576p, which will likely look quite bad on some modern TV's.

The best way they could do it, would be to use the idea I came up with on the OSSC forum. They could bring 288p down to 270 and multiply it by 4, resulting in a nicely scaled 1080p. You would lose a slight amount from the top and bottom of the screen, though every PAL game has small black borders anyway, meaning you won't have the actual game screen cropped.

I can guarantee you that even though I could come up with that idea, Sony couldn't!

we will have to see on the 3rd december
or 6 idk rn

[Steo]

I really hope they did think of something like that, so they don't have bad scaling to add to the list of negatives.

I guess I was right anyway as Digital Foundry have just put up a video. It's titled "PlayStation Classic Review - Great Games, Poor Emulation".



Rayman reduced to a blurry mess!?

10:05 - Rayman glitching at the end of a level, another bad sign.

OK Seriously!? PAL games running at 50fps while the console is at 60Hz (juddering mess)? Blurry scaling despite using 240p x3 = 720p they used which is exactly what I said (bilinear filtering that nobody wants on 240p games)? Scaling 480i/576i games into 720p? This is ridiculous!

Rayman can't even hold a steady 60fps without stuttering every so often on the Classic. Looks like importing the NTSC version was the right thing to do. This is seriously ridiculous. €99 for a bad emulator.

The guy making the video does say however, that Rayman is one of his favourite games on PS1. He also says "I feel it doesn't quite get the respect it deserves. It's a brilliant beautiful game with smooth performance, a wonderful soundtrack, and challenging gameplay".

[SrRayman]

I'm glad I wasn't thinking of getting this. This is sad.

[Steo]

Apparently there's a hitch in Rayman every 63 frames, meaning it will micro-stutter every 1.05 seconds. I don't know about others, but that would drive me nuts! It's bad enough that it seems to be using bilinear filtering on the game, making those lovely sharp pixels into a garbled mess, but then it has constant hitching and some graphical glitches present too.

When I said money grabbing device, I was right! They really do just want our money and don't give a crap about the people who are spending their hard earned cash on their product. It's such a shame that some people will play this and think the original PS1 was this poor.

[SrRayman]

Tip of the day: Go buy the PS2 Slim or just plain PS2 to save yourselves money. I got me a PS2 Slim for 60$.
Another tip: Don't buy classic or original stuff made by other game companies. That's why I shouldn't have bought the Nintendo Switch, it's pure bullshit but if my sis likes it then okay but mother of FFFFFFFFFFUUU
Cough, cough where was I again? I just have a feeling at the moment Sony will get a lot of hate because of this. And they deserve it.

[Steo]

Tip of the day: Go buy the PS2 Slim or just plain PS2 to save yourselves money. I got me a PS2 Slim for 60$.

And if you're from a PAL area like me, you're screwed unless you order an NTSC console, or a motherboard for a console you have that you or someone you know can fit, and then order all of your games from the US.

Unless you'd rather play unoptimised slower PAL games.

Saying that, a lot of PAL PS2 games actually do still run at the right speed, though a lot are at a lower framerate while being at a slightly higher resolution. It's mainly PS1 games that were slow and Sony insisted on using 9 PAL games on the PlayStation Classic. The reason clearly being that it wasn't powerful enough to reach 60fps, so they used 50fps versions of those games instead.

[Raymanarenaps2]

Even the PS3 emulator didn't have this much trouble back in the day. What is happening with Rayman on the PlayStation Classic at the end of stages is something I would expect when pirating a game not when buying a game. Emulation typically does have issues but it can be just as good as the real hardware if tweaked properly. Some emulators even let you adjust the speed if that is an issue with them. emulation or not, I had experienced better emulation then what is being offered on the PlayStation Classic.

I think if they did hardware emulation, that the games would at least keep their frame rates up.

[Steo]

I just prefer real hardware in general because it's authentic, but I agree that emulation can be much better than what they're selling you. Some emulators are pretty accurate, some of the most accurate emulators I ever used were the NES, SNES and Genesis ones for the Wii console.

The input lag is the biggest factor for me, but in some cases depending on the hardware you're running it on, low input lag can be achieved.

I'm just generally disappointed in the Classic, there's just so many things wrong with it all at the same time. A hitch every 1.05 seconds in Rayman is enough that I'd rather not pay €99 for that "privilege", and that's without all those other issues it has.

[Raymanarenaps2]

The PlayStation Classic is no doubt a disappointment. I could tollerate a slightly lower frame rate. I could tolerate is small list of games without any big tittles. I could even tolerate buying a separate power cord just to play the PlayStation Classic. If the music slows down and the frame rate gets so low that it feels broken on a legit PlayStation console sold from Sony, that is where it draws the line. I expected better dedication from Sony.

The main advantages of playing games on real hardware is, to play the games how they were intended to be played and knowing that there won't be as many issue as with emulating.

Emulators can have input lag issues, but emulators let you adjust that. As for frame rates, unless your pc can't run the game the way you want, you can also adjust the frame rate speed to the way you want it to run. After tweaking those settings, the only problems you might run into is glitches, program crashes and your pc failing to keep up with the emulators demand.

[StelzenBomber]

The PlayStation Classic is no doubt a disappointment. I could tollerate a slightly lower frame rate. I could tolerate is small list of games without any big tittles. I could even tolerate buying a separate power cord just to play the PlayStation Classic. If the music slows down and the frame rate gets so low that it feels broken on a legit PlayStation console sold from Sony, that is where it draws the line. I expected better dedication from Sony.

The main advantages of playing games on real hardware is, to play the games how they were intended to be played and knowing that there won't be as many issue as with emulating.

Emulators can have input lag issues, but emulators let you adjust that. As for frame rates, unless your pc can't run the game the way you want, you can also adjust the frame rate speed to the way you want it to run. After tweaking those settings, the only problems you might run into is glitches, program crashes and your pc failing to keep up with the emulators demand.

i find it pretty good
imput lag wont destroy my expirience with a normal monitor

[Steo]

I agree, Sony really should have done better, especially at that price.

I'm not trying to bash emulation when I say these things, but there are some bad emulators that exist out there too. I mean, no doubt the real hardware is better, but some emulators aren't bad either. Some emulators have a ton of input lag, some don't and it's noticeable in comparison.

Basically I'm just saying that playing it on the original hardware is better, especially in this case with the PS1 Classic. Saying that though, some emulators can also make games look better by running them at a higher resolution and using better filtering.

I just prefer real hardware where possible over emulation personally, especially for older 2D sidescrollers like Rayman 1. You know that you'll have zero issues and be able to just play the game at a steady framerate. Again as I said though, some emulators aren't bad and if you set them up properly, they can run pretty well. It can be a bit complicated though depending on your setup.

[Raymanarenaps2]

I don't know why, but these Classic consoles aren't as appealing to me like they would had been 5 years ago
These classic consoles are nice and all, and would had been better if released around 2008.
What seems more efficient now is these older games being remastered.
Sure it won't be the same as the original but, playing these games through HDMI with black bars and low resolution just isn't ideal.
Having a scan lines filter of some sort at least would be nice.

[Steo]

I don't mind the borders because I'd prefer it than playing it stretched to 16:9, but scanlines would be nice yes. Also, an option to change filter settings or disable bilinear filtering on 2D games would be another nice addition. There's far too much limitation for the amount of money they want you to spend on them.

The Nintendo variants of these consoles are no doubt superior vs this PlayStation, but I still prefer the originals. They're cool if you want to bring them on holiday or to a friends house etc, but I'd prefer to set up my real consoles if I'm at home.

I have the OSSC which allows the use of scanlines and stuff. While the OSSC itself was expensive, it allows me to play all my older consoles on a modern TV with perfect scaling. I personally think it was worth it, but I know a lot of people wouldn't want to spend money on it. For me, it beats the crap out of PS1 classic, because at least I can play any game I want instead of being limited to 20, along with there being literally no graphical glitches or bad scaling.

I think the only people that will buy the PlayStation Classic either don't know what they're buying, or they just want to collect it as an ornament "to have it".