This pattern should be the future of emulation development, where possible.
Lots of stability and performance issues. Had difficulty getting a 3ghz Core 2 Duo to emulate SNES effectively with it... might've chosen the wrong engine out of the thousand alternatives, though.
Best i can tell it simply slaps a UI on top of already existing, free standing, emulators.
A great article from the author of higan (whose core OP probably used):
That's very odd considering retropie runs snes perfectly.
Additionally, the more modern snes9x cores have essentially the same sound emulation as higan (blargg's SNES_SPC library). I believe higan has done some modification of that code since importing it but regardless, the sound emulation in snes9x is very, very accurate.
Higan is indeed unparalleled for those who truly care about extreme accuracy, but snes9x is 99% there for the vast majority of users who just want to play games.
For example, here's a picture of an actual DOS ANSI output, from a CRT monitor, and here's the equivalent display from this filter. In what way is emulating the scanlines making this more authentic?
Edit: clarified a bit
3: The correct terminology is escaping me. The interlacing? Whatever is responsible for the skipping of lines in the output.
Edit: also this effect was easily visible on Windows 9x startup/shutdown screen, which IIRC uses 320x400 unchained mode.
Edit2: somewhat relevant to this is that many late 00's LCD monitors with only VGA input are not able to reliably keep synchronisation lock in double scan modes and there is significant subset of current monitors that will simply reject any 400-line mode (and there is significant subset of modern graphics cards that output classical VGA text mode as 640x480 or 720x480)
Seems to be one guy that takes CRT emulation seriously...
So the guy that had the honest to god IBM PS/2 that cost $10k thinks all of these artifacts are anachronisms, while the guy with the bargain basement hand-me-down Packard Bell thinks it looks perfect.
I'm pretty sure even LCD panels just repeated lines and didn't leave them blank, so some portion of people actually used an LCD to play these originally might have close to perfect accuracy if they repeated lines.
The only times I can particularly remember scanlines being really bad and noticeable were on the old CGA displays in the 80's. And those didn't look like this representation by a long shot, there was a lot of bleed in those as well, the lines were just big enough the bleed didn't obfustate it quite as much. I can't comment on EGA/VGA, we went straight from a CGA monitor to a SVGA one in the late 80's or early 90's, I don't recall exactly when. It's possible there was a display type in there that I didn't use much which actually makes this representation more accurate.
Oh, wait. No it wouldn't. That was terrible!
Yet, somehow I'm nostalgic for it.
You are absolutely right, example images are pure nonsense, because they represent late nineties VGA era of DOS gaming. UFO, Warcraft, Rayman, Dungeon Hack, not a single one of those supports CGA/EGA.
But yeah, it's hard to simulate a smaller size... And if it's still larger, simulated softness will just look awkward, at least as far as I have seen with such filters. Like rounded but still big pixellated blocks. It can even look worse than without filters...
My solution? Sit a little farther away from the monitor than usual or play windowed. Unbeatable compared to filters.
DOS games most certainly were played on CRT monitors, it wasn't until, IIRC, 2000 that LCDs really became mainstream for desktop use.
> since almost all of the images shown are for games I actually played on a DOS computer using a SVGA display when young.
Being an SVGA display isn't relevant -- there were plenty of CRTs running that resolution and beyond. Perhaps you're thinking of something else when you say "displays that looked like this"? Otherwise I'm not really sure how to interpret your comment, because if you were playing DOS games at the time of their release, you were almost assuredly playing on a CRT -- unless you're talking about a 90s era laptop; those were LCD.
The scanlines aren't visible. The most important "mistake" those filters do is that they apply a uniform shade for each scanline, but in all CRTs i have around here, the scanlines do kinda merge together when the colors are bright.
http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?26680-EGA-monitor-... Third picture shows how it actually looked like on ~1985 hardware. Barely noticeable. By the time VGA hit the streets it was gone.
The Sony FW900 is without doubt the best CRT monitor ever built (IMHO). It was a ridiculous monitor, both in size, sharpness, colour accuracy and most of all weight.
I remember buying a used one for about £300 (I recall the retail price was close to £1000) and my housemate and I carrying the thing up to my room, almost breaking our backs. It was easily 40kg. But it was an outstanding monitor. The best CRT screen I've ever used by a long shot.
Actually, one of my earliest memories of using CRT monitors was my first PC (a Packard Bell 286) with the monitor having a dot pitch of about 0.3, or possibly even higher than that. The pixels were like bricks.
Eventually upgraded to a monitor with a dot pitch of 0.26 and I remember it felt like going from a standard LCD screen to a retina screen. It was quite the revolution for me at the time.
The amount of heat it dissipated was huge, tho.
Not a very strong case for "prevalent."