• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 2
  3. The slim PS2 emulating PS1 blows my mind

User Info: jwitz

jwitz
7 years ago#1
I mean, I know there are some games that are incompatible, but that's still like 99% of PS1 covered.

The thing is, I've only recently found this out, and I honestly can't tell the difference between this and playing on a normal PS1 console. If I'd never found out, I would have carried on thinking it was the real hardware.

How they pulled it off is beyond me. That's like the Gamecube being able to fully emulate the N64 (I guess there was the Zelda collection, but it had noticeable bugs, and I guess the architecture was more complex) but still.

I guess it's not that impressive when compared to how they achieved PS1 on PSP emulation when I think about it. Do you guys notice a difference when playing PS1 games on your slim?

User Info: SpikeyAss

SpikeyAss
7 years ago#2
The fat PS2 uses PSX's original sound chip as an audio-processor, with input/output support. Slim PS2 removes this chip & the PSX's RAM.

To compensate for this, and the deficiencies in its year 2000-developed emulator, slim PS2's graphics synthesizer and Emotion Engine are overclocked. As a result, its PSX emulation, through PS2's incredibly fast pixel-drawing (faster than PS3/Xbox 360's GPUs), reduces input lag and feels like the real thing. PS2's identical analog video output reinforces this.

But the emulation is imperfect. No native PSX hardware causes problems for about 40-50 PSX games, including rendering some unplayable. It also causes problems for PS2 games which use the PSX sound chip for graphics processing, and overclocked hardware incurs more heat (exacerbated by PS2 slim's little ventilation).

User Info: WarGreymon77

WarGreymon77
7 years ago#3
I don't have a slim, but PS2 with S-Video is my favorite way to play PS1 games, as far as image quality goes. I know some people say not to bother with s-video on an LCD TV, but the PS2's s-video looks absolutely fantastic on my TV.

User Info: Lum_Yatsura

Lum_Yatsura
7 years ago#4
WarGreymon77 posted...
I don't have a slim, but PS2 with S-Video is my favorite way to play PS1 games, as far as image quality goes. I know some people say not to bother with s-video on an LCD TV, but the PS2's s-video looks absolutely fantastic on my TV.


s-video is the bare minimum when practical.

Composite looks too fuzzy for serious use, it's a cheap easy to use lowest common denominator.
Even that's going away as neither the PS4 or Xbox One support it.
Quality wise was obsolete by the mid 80s, system like Master System were technically capable of better.
3ds fc: 5026 4515 5016
We'll ion buzz to the blue stars over there!?

User Info: Nogib

Nogib
7 years ago#5
SpikeyAss posted...
The fat PS2 uses PSX's original sound chip as an audio-processor, with input/output support. Slim PS2 removes this chip & the PSX's RAM.

To compensate for this, and the deficiencies in its year 2000-developed emulator, slim PS2's graphics synthesizer and Emotion Engine are overclocked. As a result, its PSX emulation, through PS2's incredibly fast pixel-drawing (faster than PS3/Xbox 360's GPUs), reduces input lag and feels like the real thing. PS2's identical analog video output reinforces this.

But the emulation is imperfect. No native PSX hardware causes problems for about 40-50 PSX games, including rendering some unplayable. It also causes problems for PS2 games which use the PSX sound chip for graphics processing, and overclocked hardware incurs more heat (exacerbated by PS2 slim's little ventilation).


Woah there! The slim PS2s *DO* still have the same I/O processor as the fats and do PS1 games in hardware, not software!
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.

User Info: SpikeyAss

SpikeyAss
7 years ago#6
I'll try to make this simple.

FAT PS2 has the PS1 CPU as an I/O controller, which acts as the CPU when playing PS1 games. It includes PS1's 2MB RAM. Meanwhile, PS1 games' GPU duties are performed by the PS2's graphics synthesizer in hardware (since it is a hardware successor - it is essentially eight PS1 GPUs glued together).

Here's where things get tricky. The slim PS2, like the fat PS2, has many different motherboard revisions - even under the same serial number. Slim PS2's I/O MIPS chip can still comprise the entirety of PS1's R3000A, sometimes with and without PS1's RAM, and IDE traces (30-second soldering can install an IDE HDD!).

But, even if the R3000A chip is included in a slim PS2, it is unused for PS1 games. It's only for I/O processing peripherals.

To run PS1 games, slim PS2 performs PS1's CPU, GTE (Geometry Transfer Engine), MDEC (Motion Decoder) and SPU through emulation on the PS2's CPU (Emotion Engine) instead. Hence PS1 games' generally higher frame-rates, incompatibility with PS1 and PS2 games which used the R3000A for I/O sound processing (or in Jak X's case, network data on PS1's RAM), and missing music and reverb due to the lack of PS1 SPU in slim PS2s.

Slim's CPU was overclocked from to 294MHz to 299MHz for this. Sony designed this for easier PS1/PS2 emulation in PS3

User Info: Shamrock99

Shamrock99
7 years ago#7
Does anyone else think playing PS1 games via component on a Slim PS2 on a CRT actually looks worse than s-video or composite? I feel like component makes PS1 games so clear that jaggies are more apparent and the tradeoff isn't worth it. 2D games look best in component but when I play a 3D game the lack of anti-aliasing is so much more noticeable than when I used composite.

Maybe I'm just going crazy, but last time I played some RR Type 4 it looked way more jaggy than I recall when playing it with the exact same setup except with composite instead of component.

I think it's a tradeoff I'll have to live with, but good thing I kept my old composite cables incase I ever feel the need to switch back. It's like PS1 games simply were never supposed to look this clear so you unfortunately can see all the stairsteps in the edges of 3D graphics.

Input is greatly appreciated!
http://tinyurl.com/k8ebbaq | http://tinyurl.com/lwq5hyu | http://tinyurl.com/mu9xdv3
http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat

User Info: WarGreymon77

WarGreymon77
7 years ago#8
I try my best to avoid composite whenever humanly possible. I hate fuzzy text, which is composite's biggest flaw. Then there's the fact that composite pretty much places a blur filter over the whole screen, and the colors look more faded. You can see what I'm talking about on any website that has comparison pics. The NES is the only system that I use composite for.

I'm kind of terrified at the thought of RF on an LCD TV... but very curious at the same time.

User Info: Shamrock99

Shamrock99
6 years ago#9
bump for opinions to my last post if anyone's got any
http://tinyurl.com/k8ebbaq | http://tinyurl.com/lwq5hyu | http://tinyurl.com/mu9xdv3
http://www.backloggery.com/Kajicat

User Info: PStrife

PStrife
6 years ago#10
Given how Sony at the time bought Connectix's unlicensed commercial Playstation emulator software (Virtual Game Station), meagre months prior to launch, this isn't surprising actually. They just ported most of that over and called it a day.

Bleem! on the other hand decided to play with fire, instead of just giving up with their crappy over-reliance of one unlicensed single product business model.

That is what went down at the time.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 2
  3. The slim PS2 emulating PS1 blows my mind
  • Topic Archived

GameFAQs Q&A