One big difference I've noticed is regressions. While Dolphin has an insanely strong regression suite and plenty of people testing for regressions, Cemu seems to randomly go back and forth on support for games.
If you look at this unoffical "change report" you see a lot of comments mentioning that: https://www.reddit.com/r/cemu/comments/6d3nwc/180_megathread...
Part of it is probably how early in the game it is compared to Dolphin, but part of me wonders if being closed source means it's development won't ever reach Dolphin levels of quality
Measuring Cemu against this holy grail is a fool's errand. Cemu is so early and so immature that it's impossible to tell where it will go. But we do know this: Cemu is, for now, very well funded and so far Nintendo has turned a blind eye. As long as customers keep paying in and getting meaningful progress back out, I see a long and successful future ahead of it. Hell, Cemu is doing better as a business (despite not being one) than some actual companies I've worked at.
As far as the future of Cemu and the capabilities of Wii U emulation in the long term? I encourage you to read the Dolphin wikipedia article and notice that Dolphin's origins are shockingly similar to Cemu's. Will it follow a similar path? Who knows? The reality is Dolphin didn't have the benefit of Patreon in 2008, and Cemu devs must be making good money...
"many active and talented contributors, excellent project organization and discipline, and a focused community rallying behind one project"
The one project part is probably going to stick due to the high barrier of entry (some whispers have said that the reason CEMU is closed source is they used parts of the Wii U SDK that were under NDA to bootstrap development).
But the many talented contributors may be limited due to the closed source nature, and the culture of excellent organization and discipline might have trouble developing if the community is comprised of a few very talented developers focused on an emulator. Open source work allows people of varying quality to contribute, which can be a curse (if the overhead of filtering low quality contributions is too high), or a blessing, because people end up contributing to house keeping tasks that the core devs otherwise wouldn't have time for.
(and of course, this is all assuming it's not open sourced in the future)
I would bet money on that. I am not am emu dev myself, nor am I an expert at reverse engineering game consoles, but the progress that Cemu is making is blazing. Even for hacky HLE. Cemu is running circles around it's open source alternative. If they really cared about moving WiiU emulation forward, they could at least release the source code and not let others contribute. It's not like the emulation community is competing for money here ...right?
Who knows. Maybe the Cemu team will wait for more information to surface, maybe for some better documentation from the reverse engineering community, or some leaked documents from other sources. Then open up their code and play it off like it was always a level playing field.
Theoretically, Vulkan should be great for Linux users, since GL took a large hit when tev_fixes_new got merged. But I haven't tried it either :)
yeha, but it reads as if Vulkan was chosen by the devs for Windows performance only. Actually, it's not just for that. It's also a matter of multiplatform support.
For what it's worth, I have the Android build of Dolphin on my phone (Pixel XL) and it seems to perform more quickly under Vulkan, but has some major graphical problems that prevent it from being playable. I suspect that once those are worked out, Vulkan will outperform OpenGL, but I'm not familiar enough with the project to say anything for certain.
I can only assume this has something to do with its being written by non-native English speakers.
The toolkit was called Qt because the letter Q looked appealing in Haavard's Emacs typeface, and "t" was inspired by Xt, the X toolkit.
So was Xt called "exit"?