>
An emulator (MAME or any other) will have at least 1 video frame of latency, and at
> least 2 if you enable triple buffering. This is on top of any latency that the game's
> original hardware/software have, of course. It's well known that modern consoles tend
> to have quite a bit, and even back in the 1980s games often had at least a couple of
> frames of joystick-to-eyeball latency. Space Invaders runs slower when all the
> invaders are alive, for instance, but that works well with the gameplay since you get
> better latency when you need it, towards the end of each stage
+++++
> You don't need to measure it. On an arcade board the CPU can sit in a loop monitoring
> your button presses. When you run that in MAME the inputs are only updated every
> frame.
>
> On seeing you press that button it could change a palette register which will be
> output instantly. In MAME it's not only had to wait up to a frame to get the input
> but the frame can only be output once it's fully generated. Which can add up to
> another frame.
>
> This is before you get into vsync/triple buffer/display driver issues which can add
> more latencies.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting posts. Do you guys think that is the reason why the Ms Pac-Man games seem so difficult to control? I'm often making tons of mistakes because I can't the bitch go where I want her to.
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: MAME latencies?
Reply
