> > All true. But it plays a lot of games, can output to MUNT for mt-32 emulation and
> > supports CRT pixel shaders if you use unofficial builds
>
> MUNT is HLE bullshit (I own a real hardware MT-32, I'm allowed to say that), and the
> giant forest of mutually incompatible patches for DOSBox oughta get the original
> authors to either make a new release or formally hand over the project to someone who
> can.
Really? I didn't know that about MUNT. I'd like to get a real MT-32 myself but they're a bit expensive on eBay and I'm not sure how well it works when outputting to it from dosbox or MAME. I know you did a lot of work with MIDI/synth stuff and MAME a while ago. Is it feasible to hook a MT-32 up to a PC with some cheap USB thing and have dos software drive it (through the CT486 driver for example). If so, how is latency?
I've noticed that over on VOGONS they seem pretty hostile when someone brings up the fact that they haven't had an official release in years. Most of the cool stuff is from external patches it seems. But if that's the way they want it... They're kind of the only game in town. I have a million games from GOG now that come with an old DOSBox version that I always have to replace with a more feature filled compile.
MAME will probably pass them up eventually as far as compatibility and emulated hardware variety goes as more slot devices get added. It's not too far off now.  But I suppose DOSBox will always be faster because all they care about is getting games to run.
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Flat 
Re: Better than DosBox?
Reply
But I suppose DOSBox will always be faster because all they care about is getting games to run.
